UNIVERSITY   OF   CALIFORNIA 

COLLEGE   OF   AGRICULTURE 

AGRICULTURAL    EXPERIMENT    STATION 

BERKELEY,    CALIFORNIA 


SERIES  ON  CALIFORNIA  CROPS  AND  PRICES 

ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF 
THE  DAIRY  INDUSTRY 

EDWIN  O.  VOORHIES 


BULLETIN  437 

October,  1927 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  PRINTING  OFFICE 

BERKELEY,  CALIFORNIA 

1927 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2012  with  funding  from 

University  of  California,  Davis  Libraries 


http://www.archive.org/details/economicaspectso437voor 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Foreword 5 

Summary 5 

The  development  of  the  dairy  industry 10 

United  States 10 

California 16 

Ratio  of  dairy  cows  to  dairy  heifers,  1920-1927 24 

Geographic  distribution  of  dairying 26 

United  States 26 

Pure-bred  dairy  cattle 26 

The  general  dairy  situation 28 

Importance  of  the  dairy  industry,  United  States 28 

Importance  of  the  dairy  industry,  California 31 

Dairy-feed  conditions  in  California 35 

Average  production  per  cow  in  California 37 

Production  of  dairy  products 42 

Manufacturing  and  distributing  plants  in  the  Western  States 42 

Butter  production 45 

Cheese  production 52 

Production  of  condensed  and  evaporated  milk 54 

Production  of  ice  cream 57 

Production  and  distribution  of  market  milk 58 

Production  of  other  dairy  products 63 

Consumption  of  dairy  products 64 

Utilization  of  milk 64 

Apparent  consumption  of  dairy  products 66 

Prices  and  purchasing  power  of  products  of  the  dairy  industry 72 

Farm  prices  of  milk  cows  in  the  United  States  and  California 72 

Prices  of  dairy  products 77 

Butterfat  prices 77 

Butter  prices 81 

Cheese  prices 96 

Market-milk  prices 100 

Sweet-cream  prices 107 

Milk  prices  at  condenseries 109 

Powdered  skim  milk 110 

Veal 110 

Prices  of  discarded  milk  cows Ill 

Cost  factors  in  the  production  of  milk 112 

General  considerations 112 

Feed  costs 114 

Labor 117 

Land  values 120 

Storage  of  dairy  products 121 

Cold  storage  of  butter 121 

Cold  storage  of  cheese 124 

Condensed  and  evaporated  milk 127 


PAGE 

Domestic  trade  in  products  of  the  dairy  industry 128 

Dairy  cattle 128 

Domestic  trade  in  butter 131 

Domestic  trade  in  cheese 140 

Foreign  trade  in  dairy  products 146 

California's  share  in  foreign  trade 146 

Imports  and  exports  of  dairy  products,  United  States 149 

Tariff  on  dairy  products 159 

The  international  trade  in  dairy  products 160 

The  foreign  dairy  situation  (Argentina — Australia — Canada — Denmark — 
Esthonia — Finland — France —  Germany —  Great  Britain —  Holland — 
Italy— Irish  Free  State — Latvia — Lithuania — New  Zealand — Switzer- 
land— Russia — Sweden) 165 

Oleomargarine 170 

Relation  to  butter 170 

Price  relationship  of  butter  and  oleomargarine 172 

Production  of  oleomargarine 174 

Consumption  of  oleomargarine  in  California 174 

Tuberculosis 176 

Freight  and  express  rates 178 

Sources  of  current  information  on  the  dairy  industry 178 

Appendix  of  tables 181 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF  THE  DAIRY  INDUSTRY 

EDWIN  C.  VOORHIESi 


FOREWORD 

This  bulletin  represents  the  results  of  a  study  undertaken  at  the 
request  of  the  various  dairy  interests  of  California.  The  primary 
object  has  been  to  analyze  the  chief  available  statistical  data  relating 
to  the  industry. 

Those  interested  in  specific  products  of  the  dairy  industry  are 
asked  to  consult  the  table  of  contents  (p.  3).  The  material  has  been 
so  arranged  that  data  on  the  production  of  various  dairy  products 
will  be  found  in  one  section  of  the  publication,  while  those  on  con- 
sumption will  be  found  in  another,  etc. 

For  those  who  wish  to  quickly  obtain  the  conclusions  set  forth  in 
the  body  of  the  publication,  the  summary  found  in  the  first  few  pages 
will  be  helpful. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

Acknowledgment  is  due  the  directors  and  members  of  the  Food 
Research  Institute,  Leland  Stanford  Jr.  University,  under  whom  this 
work  was  undertaken. 

Especial  thanks  are  given  Dr.  J.  J.  Frey,  Chief,  Bureau  of  Dairy 
Control,  California  State  Department  of  Agriculture,  without  whose 
cooperation  a  large  part  of  the  data  contained  in  this  publication 
would  not  have  been  available,  and  to  J.  Murray  Davison,  Assistant 
Farm  Advisor,  Alameda  County,  California,  for  his  untiring  assist- 
ance in  making  statistical  computations. 

Credit  is  due  the  many  individuals  and  agencies  who  contributed 
materially  by  way  of  suggestions  and  the  furnishing  of  data. 

SUMMARY 

California  cannot  be  detached  from  the  United  States  in  any 
consideration  of  the  dairy  industry.  In  turn,  a  view  of  the  world 
situation  must  be  obtained  in  order  to  understand  present  domestic 
conditions  and  to  formulate  future  policies. 

1  Assistant  Professor  of  Agricultural  Economics  and  Associate  Agricultural 
Economist  in  the  Experiment  Station. 


b  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

This  state  produces  approximately  3.7  per  cent  of  the  total  milk 
supply  of  the  United  States  (1924  data),  and  on  January  1,  1927, 
contained  2.73  per  cent  of  all  the  cows  kept  for  milk  purposes. 

Because  of  the  many  products,  the  dairy  industry  is  difficult  to 
analyze  as  an  entity.  Although  in  the  long  run  there  is  a  tendency 
toward  an  equilibrium  in  the  production  of  the  various  dairy 
products,  in  some  countries  and  sections  readjustments  between  the 
production  of  these  are  necessarily  slow.  During  and  since  the 
World  War,  a  number  of  important  changes  have  taken  place  in  the 
dairy  industry.  These  changes  are  summarized  in  the  following  dis- 
cussion under  (1)  The  World  Situation,  (2)  The  United  States,  and 
(3)  The  Western  States,  Including  California. 

1.  The  World  Situation. — Butter,  cheese,  and  concentrated  milk 
are  the  three  dominant  dairy  products  on  the  world  markets. 
Although  the  first  two  have  long  been  important  articles  of  commerce, 
the  latter  has  only  recently  come  into  especial  prominence.  One  of 
the  pronounced  changes  in  the  world  dairy  trade  began  before  the 
World  War  with  the  development  of  the  industry  in  the  southern 
hemisphere,  particularly  in  New  Zealand,  Argentina,  and  Australia. 
The  maladjustments  in  Europe's  agriculture  at  the  close  of  the  World 
War  afforded  the  countries  of  the  southern  hemisphere  an  excellent 
market  for  butter  and  cheese.  Shortly  afterwards  efforts  were  made 
by  the  European  nations  to  win  back  their  former  trade  with  Great 
Britain  and  Germany — the  two  leading  importers  of  butter  and 
cheese.  Supplies  of  the  latter  two  products  and  concentrated  milk 
on  the  world  market  are  far  greater  today  than  they  were  before  the 
World  War,  owing  to  the  greatly  increased  supplies  from  the  southern 
hemisphere  and  in  many  cases  increased  offerings  from  Europe  itself. 
Fortunately  for  this  situation  Germany  in  1924  began  to  import 
greatly  increased  amounts  of  butter  and  cheese  and  this  condition  has 
afforded  an  additional  outlet.  According  to  the  best  available  infor- 
mation attempts  are  being  made  to  make  up  for  the  deficiency  of  dairy 
products  in  Germany  itself. 

Trade  in  concentrated  milk  has  more  directly  concerned  the  United 
States,  and  in  it  almost  revolutionary  changes  have  taken  place  since 
1914.  Through  the  European  demand  the  United  States  became  the 
leading  exporter  of  concentrated  milk  during  the  war.  The  larger 
part  of  this  was  brought  about  by  army  requirements  of  the  United 
States  and  allied  powers.  Holland,  which  before  1913  was  unim- 
portant in  this  trade,  has  gradually  become  the  dominant  exporting 
nation  of  the  world,  displacing  the  United  States  in  the  European 
field. 


BUL.  437]  ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY  7 

World  conditions  and  prices  do  not  point  to  any  considerable 
opportunities  in  foreign  trade  for  the  United  States  at  this  time. 
At  present  (January  to  October,  1927)  increased  offerings  on  world 
markets  are  being  taken  at  lower  prices,  as  reports  from  both  London 
and  Copenhagen  indicate. 

2.  The  United  States. — Nation-wide  prices  of  dairy  products  are 
difficult  if  not  impossible  to  obtain.  Data  of  the  Bureau  of  Agricul- 
tural Economics  indicate  that  butter  prices  since  1923  have  been 
almost  normal,  although  during  the  war  they  failed  to  rise  as  rapidly 
as  commodity  prices  in  general.  Milk  prices,  on  the  other  hand,  have 
been  low — especially  milk  destined  for  concentration  purposes. 

The  dairy  industry  of  the  United  States  in  its  entirety  should 
experience  a  steady,  sane  growth  which  should  be  at  the  same  rate  as 
that  in  population,  provided  the  consumption  requirements  do  not 
change.  The  numbers  of  dairy  cows  should  increase  relatively  less 
rapidly  than  production  as  the  production  of  butterfat  per  cow  should 
increase.  Increased  efficiency  and  quality  of  the  product  are  far 
more  important  than  an  increase  in  numbers  of  dairy  cows.  Although 
the  consumption  of  all  the  important  dairy  products  has  increased 
during  the  past  ten  years,  there  is  no  certainty  that  this  upward 
trend  will  continue,  particularly  with  the  increased  pressure  of  all 
types  of  food  upon  population,  which  has  come  about  during  the  past 
few  years  in  this  country.  One  of  the  most  certain  methods  of  main- 
taining consumption  is  by  increasing  quality.  While  under  present 
conditions  indications  do  not  warrant  any  large  increase  in  the 
number  of  animals,  the  dairyman  of  the  United  States  should  never 
lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  it  might  prove  detrimental  to  the  industry 
and  himself  if  prices  were  considerably  higher  relatively  than  those 
for  other  foodstuffs.  This  is  particularly  pertinent  in  the  case  of 
butter  with  the  number  of  partial  substitutes  offered.  However,  with 
the  thousands  of  actual  and  potential  producers  the  danger  is  far 
more  likely  to  come  from  over  than  from  under-expansion. 

Questions  about  far  eastern  trade  possibilities  have  been  raised 
continually.  While  this  trade  may  develop,  it  will  be  necessary  to 
conduct  considerable  pioneer  work  first.  High-quality  dairy  products 
from  this  country  have  been  in  a  position  to  compete  with  those  from 
foreign  countries.  The  concentrated-milk  exports  have  been  tending 
to  shift  from  the  east  to.  the  west  coast  and  it  is  probable  that  this 
shift  will  continue,  although  the  export  trade  as  a  whole  is  decreasing 
and  will  probably  continue  to  do  so.  It  would  not  be  possible  for 
this  country  to  remain  on  an  importing  basis  with  butter  and  cheese 


8  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

and  on  an  exporting  basis  with  concentrated  milk  if  the  present  differ- 
ential between  domestic  and  foreign  prices  of  butter  continues,  since 
there  will  be  a  tendency  for  an  equilibrium  in  the  production  of  these 
three  products. 

3.  The  Western  States  Including  California. — The  eleven  western 
states  may  be  considered  as  an  entity  in  the  dairy  industry  because 
they  are,  for  all  practical  purposes,  self-sufficient,  cheese  being  im- 
ported, concentrated  milk  being  exported,  and  butter  shipments 
balancing.  The  western  area  has  not  only  grown  more  rapidly  in 
population  than  any  other  section,  but  its  dairying  has  increased  in 
a  like  manner.  Butter  and  cheese  production  in  the  last  ten  years 
have  forged  ahead  more  rapidly  in  the  sections  of  this  area  outside  of 
California.  This  state  for  some  time  has  been  deficient  in  butter  and 
cheese  production,  increasing  amounts  having  been  shipped  in  from 
other  states  and  foreign  countries.  The  fact  that  the  state  is  an 
exporter  of  concentrated  milk  should  not  be  lost  from  view. 

The  factors  making  for  a  relatively  larger  increase  in  butter  and 
cheese  production  in  the  other  western  states  have  been  many.  Alfalfa 
hay  and  certain  concentrates  have  been  cheaper  in  many  of  the  dairy 
sections  of  the  west,  especially  in  Idaho  and  Montana.  Difficulties  in 
exporting  alfalfa  have  forced  a  greater  utilization  of  it  near  produc- 
tion centers.  In  many  of  the  sections  competition  between  various 
crops  has  not  been  as  keen  as  it  has  been  in  California.  Prices  of 
dairy  products  did  not  drop  relatively  as  low  as  those  of  other  staple 
agricultural  products  and  in  general  they  have  been  more  constant. 
Whether  butterfat  areas  in  this  state  can  produce  more  cheaply  than 
in  the  other  western  states  is  problematical.  California  has  an  advan- 
tage in  transportation,  compared  with  most  sections  of  the  western 
area  producing  for  California  markets.  This  has  made,  together  with 
other  factors,  for  a  higher  price  of  butterfat  in  this  state  than  in  the 
surplus  sections.  In  general,  cows  in  California  are  higher  producers 
than  elsewhere,  and  the  lack  of  a  decided  seasonal  production  in  many 
sections  has  been  an  advantage.  Additional  butterfat  will  be  needed 
and  a  steady,  conservative  growth  should  be  contemplated.  The 
growth  in  the  numbers  of  cows  should  proceed  more  slowly  than  that 
of  population  or  butterfat.  If  the  state  is  to  continue  to  produce 
large  amounts  of  butterfat  for  other  than  market-milk  purposes  it 
must  do  so  on  the  basis  of  cows  of  higher  producing  ability. 

Especial  caution  should  be  exercised  in  regulating  numbers  of 
animals  supplying  market-milk  needs.  With  a  product  such  as  milk 
it  is  highly  essential  that  a  high-quality  supply  be  maintained.    Pro- 


BUL.  437]  ECONOMIC   ASPECTS  OF   THE  DAIRY   INDUSTRY  9 

ducers,  distributors,  and  consumers  alike  should  be  interested  in  an 
orderly  growth  of  this  supply;  such  growth  cannot  come  about 
through  large  and  sudden  accessions  to  the  herds  in  any  section. 
Unfortunately,  in  many  sections  sufficient  data  do  not  exist  upon 
which  to  base  estimates  of  future  needs  nor  to  determine  seasonal 
demands.  Certain  sections  of  the  state,  particularly  in  the  vicinity 
of  Los  Angeles,  require  large  importations  of  dairy  cattle  to  supply 
additions  and  replacements  for  herds  producing  market  milk.  These 
cattle  are  largely  shipped  into  the  state  and  the  need  for  high- 
producing,  disease-free  cattle  ought  to  be  filled  in  this  state. 

Incomplete  data  serve  to  indicate  that,  as  in  the  nation,  the  per 
capita  consumption  of  dairy  products  has  increased ;  but  it  is  doubtful 
if  the  past  rate  of  increase  can  be  continued.  Per  capita  consumption 
of  dairy  products  in  California  is  higher  than  in  the  nation.  Every 
effort  should  be  made  to  encourage  the  production  of  quality  products. 
The  maintenance  of  quality  is  vital  to  the  California  dairyman  with 
shipments  of  butter  and  cheese  from  the  outside.  Furthermore,  on 
the  basis  of  quality  California  dairy  products  have  been  able  to 
compete  with  cheaper  products  from  abroad. 

Prices  for  dairy  products  in  California  lagged  behind  general 
commodity  prices  during  the  war.  Compared  with  general  com- 
modity prices  the  trend  in  the  prices  of  the  major  dairy  products 
has  been  upward  since  1916,  when  they  were  at  the  lowest  point  com- 
pared with  the  prices  of  all  commodities.  With  the  exception  of  1923, 
prices  for  butterfat  in  churning  cream  have  been  slightly  below 
general  commodity  prices  based  upon  a  1910-1914  average.  These 
comparisons  are  for  unit  prices  of  dairy  products  only.  Since  the 
production  of  fat  does  not  fluctuate  as  much  from  year  to  year  as 
that  of  may  crops,  these  comparisons  may  serve  as  the  basis  of  general 
conclusions.  It  is  believed  that  considering  relative  prices  only,  the 
dairy  industry  in  California  is  in  a  better  position  than  in  the  nation. 

The  trend  of  feed  prices  since  1910  has  not  risen  as  rapidly  as 
that  of  butterfat  prices.  Wages  have  risen  relatively  more  than  the 
prices  received  for  butterfat.  No  general  conclusions  can  be  drawn 
from  these  statements,  as  these  two  important  items  of  cost  affect 
various  producers  differently.  To  generalize  with  reference  to  land 
values  in  a  state  such  as  California  might  prove  misleading.  It  should 
be  pointed  out  that  in  all  probability  land  values  have  remained  at 
higher  levels  in  this  state  during  the  past  few  years  than  they  have 
in  the  other  western  states.  On  account  of  the  great  variety  of  crops, 
competition  between  them  has  been  more  keen  in  this  state.     If  the 


10  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

population  of  California  continues  to  increase,  it  is  highly  probable 
that  the  production  of  market  milk  and  cream  will  occupy  an  increas- 
ingly important  place  in  the  dairying  of  the  state,  and  in  addition 
this  production  will  have  the  choice  of  area.  It  is  highly  probable 
that  dairying  for  other  purposes  will  always  be  important  in  both  the 
north  and  south  coast  sections  from  Del  Norte  to  San  Luis  Obispo 
counties  and  indications  point  to  an  increase  in  the  mountain  counties. 
Southern  California,  with  the  exception  of  Imperial  Valley,  will  no 
doubt  continue  to  be  an  area  for  market-milk  production.  Especial 
care  should  be  taken  to  correlate  production  with  demands  in  the 
southern  section  of  the  state.  Increases  in  the  Sacramento,  San 
Joaquin,  and  Imperial  valleys  will  depend  on  general  conditions 
surrounding  the  industry  and  on  the  efficiency  of  production. 

THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  DAIRY  INDUSTRY 

United  States. — Until  comparatively  recent  times  cattle  of  the 
dairy  breeds  were  not  clearly  differentiated  from  those  of  the  beef 
breeds,  and  thousands  of  the  latter  are  still  used  as  milk  cows.  Com- 
parisons between  the  dairy-cow  population  for  different  years  are  not 
satisfactory  except  as  such  information  many  serve  to  indicate  very 
general  changes,  including  the  relative  distribution  of  animals. 
Further  complications  arise  from  the  fact  that  the  dates  of  the  census 
enumerations  are  not  the  same  for  each  census  year,  and  in  addition, 
the  dairy  cow  of  today  is  far  more  highly  developed  than  formerly. 
Where  marked  improvement  is  taking  place  from  year  to  year,  it 
is  not  strictly  accurate  to  make  comparisons  of  numbers,  even  for 
succeeding  years  (table  11,  p.  38). 

Cattle  were  brought  to  the  new  world  first  by  the  Spanish  in  the 
sixteenth  century  and  by  the  settlers  on  the  eastern  shores  of  the 
present  United  States  in  the  seventeenth.  These  early  cattle  not  only 
provided  milk,  meat,  butter,  and  cheese  for  the  settler,  but  served  as 
draft  animals.  Since  colonial  days  there  has  been  an  increasing 
differentiation  between  the  functions  performed  by  cattle. 

With  the  growth  of  urban  centers  along  the  eastern  seaboard, 
together  with  the  development  of  commerce  and  shipping,  dairy- 
ing began  to  develop.  The  export  statistics  of  1790  indicate  that 
appreciable  amounts  of  butter  and  cheese  were  produced  above  home 
requirements,  the  average  exports  of  the  three  years  1790-1792  being 
948,000  pounds  of  butter  and  133,000  pounds  of  cheese.2 


2  Larson,  C.  W.    The  dairy  industry.    U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Yearbook,  1922 :  p.  302. 
1923. 


BUL.  437]  ECONOMIC   ASPECTS  OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY  11 

With  the  growth  of  such  centers  as  New  York,  Boston,  and  Phila- 
delphia, and  the  advances  made  by  manufacturing  after  the  War  of 
1812,  a  supply  of  market  milk  for  the  North  Atlantic  states  became 
a  necessity.  Butter  and  cheese-making,  even  at  this  stage  in  the 
history  of  the  industry,  began  to  move  to  the  back  country.  In  1839 
the  states  reporting  the  largest  aggregate  values  of  dairy  products 
were  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  Massachusetts,  Vermont,  Ohio,  and 
New  Hampshire. 

By  1850,  over  46  per  cent  of  the  milk  cows  in  the  country  were 
west  of  the  Alleghany  Mountains.  During  the  two  decades,  1850-1860 
and  1860-1870,  a  rapid  increase  occurred  in  the  north  central  states 
and  New  York. 

The  decade  1870-1880  witnessed  the  greatest  relative  growth  in 
the  number  of  dairy  cattle  in  the  United  States — 39.3  per  cent  (Cali- 
fornia 28.0  per  cent).  Coupled  with  this  increase  was  a  rapid  expan- 
sion in  the  agricultural  area  and  in  the  number  of  farms.  By  1880 
the  Mississippi  Valley  contained  over  60  per  cent  of  the  milk  cows 
of  the  country  and  this  proportion  has  been  maintained  ever  since. 

During  the  period  1880-1890  the  largest  actual  increase  in  the 
number  of  milk  cows  occurred.  This  was  the  decade  of  expansion  of 
the  industry  in  Minnesota,  Iowa,  South  Dakota,  Nebraska,  and  Kansas. 

Expansion  was  slow  during  the  decade  1890-1900,  with  the 
exception  of  a  marked  increase  in  the  mountain  states  which  accom- 
panied the  extension  of  irrigation  and  settlement.  Estimated  milk 
production  for  the  latter  area  in  1899  was  100  per  cent  greater  than 
it  had  been  in  1889. 

Since  1900  the  most  rapid  development  in  dairying  has  been  in 
the  mountain  and  Pacific  States,  California  sharing  in  this  growth. 
The  estimated  milk  production  of  the  United  States  in  1924  was 
approximately  27  per  cent  greater  than  that  in  1899.  Population 
growth  during  the  same  period  was  over  50  per  cent.  If  the  last  five 
years  of  the  above-mentioned  period  are  considered,  production  in 
1924  exceeded  that  in  1919  by  almost  18  per  cent,  while  population 
increase  amounted  to  approximately  8  per  cent.  Although  these  data 
are  fragmentary  and  incomplete  with  reference  to  milk  production, 
indications  are  that  over  the  first  quarter  of  the  present  century  milk 
production  increased  less  rapidly  than  population,  but  that  during 
the  latter  part  of  the  period  milk  production  has  been  growing  more 
rapidly. 


12 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


pq     <u 


13 


t~     W     rt 


00    o 


OO    N    N 


•>#    ■*    CO    ©    •*    CT> 

OO    M    N    <o    o>    N 
tO    CO    CO    rt    "3    O 


CM    lO    CO    rt    rt    rt 


WOOHOIWOONOH 

■maiaoNNooNiN 

OO  •"*  ©  lO  CO  CO  OO  CO  05 
fq  lO  ^"  iH  1H  rH 


i«    »C    <M 


«  n  n 

CO    M    tO    H 


•*OWNHINinH!N 
OOWOOCOOOONlOOO 


t-     rt     CO     t-- 


u)  m  m 

■*    II    IN 
CO    OO    rt 


CO    1<    «5    N 


CO    CO    N  00    CO 

o»    O    CO  OJ    OO  CD 

OO    CO    05  »0    CO  CN 

t>T  co  ■<*"  t-T  -h 


rt    io    ©    r^ 


*    N    N    N    O    U)    e 
N    N    H    N    H  rt 


l^rtrtrtrtlOCMlOt^ 

^TflOlHOO^OINOl 

t^  *   »  "*  n  h  q  h  cn 

(N     M     IN     rH*    rt     rt 


w  ^   o)  co  a  co  co 

«-l  CM     rt  CO     rt 


o  oo  o  h  w   a  co 

as    ■**    tJ<    O    CO    «5    OO 


©    OO    CO    t~-    ©    t— 

OO    OO    N    <l    •*    H 
U5    CM    <N    <N    O    rt 


in       :   '5    i»    41    u    «    4) 

I  -§ 1  u  o  ■§  o  o 

Q     c3-J<rt''5     o3   Xi   ^ 

•si";  1 1 31  § 

x  h  -:  £  £  rt<»-G 

rt  -o 
tS  T3 
o>  a 


.2   -O     «     oj 

a  2^  § 


_<•>  5  3 


CI  52  >> 

rt  _-* 

frt  o3  = 

-«  o 

>>     .  0) 

TO  ^w 

sjrt 

5  ~  a 


DQ 

O 

CI 

t> 

+-> 

03 

rH 

~-oa 

F] 

OT 

O 

pj 

on 

on 

OB 

Fh 

m 

CO 

P< 

OJ 

CJ 

fl 

„ 

Srt 

- 

o 

rd 

so 


^4  Ox]  rt 

O       3 

*  8- 

•  •xi   • 

o  —  o3 
1|| 

no." 

V-irt     OJ 


lO 


CO       ~ 

•-;  -rt       rti 

O     C-J     03     TO 

fa  .9  ""d  ^ 

W     03 
•    03    M  T3 

OS 


•si- 

fl    C3 

el  w-5 

r°v2"5 
Urt  o 

a  _v  5 


3     CO 

(J        •  TO     o 

en  ^  °    r 

~rH  03    bfi 
S    ^  P4 

o  o  j-j  M 

O  „  o     . 

03  OQ 

^  >  be 

rt°  rt^ 

fl  rt 


03   03   CS   g 

rt=i  rtrt-g   - 

A^  +>  -t3   CO 

.  o  o  a 

irt-^j 

"Sm  03"  _3 

03     .^-  03 
".2^2 

I  all 

S>  c3"-l 

„  rt"a  | 

<D   03   >h   fl 

-rt)    .-J 

a  s-2  g 

WFivrt  03 


h   °     ,"3 


ED 


SJ 


"  03     rt 

0  oo  rt  fl 

OO  rt     ^   .jH 

O  ^     03    fH 

00  P*U2    O 

00  p,         *H 

rH  C3    g    •- 


.2«Qrt 

include  M 
ral:    Ohio 
Maryland 
sippi.    We 

tes 
ent 
ire, 
ssis 

rt-t-jg 

Mrt3  =3 

-O-g  03  03* 

lluI 

—  +J  ..rt> 

C   co  «  o3 
M  o3-rtrt 

E     ^« 

£-5<<  8 

Ph 

P  s  s  S 

t-      «3      03    rtfl 

2°'rtO   » 
^    Ph    .    fS 

O     03  lO     03 
£>  -^  CO  ,0 

SSSa 

••03  „ 

Ci     rt       . 

*  s  s  © 


-+H 


o 

rH  rt 

05  O 

.  O 


H 


>  3  O 


bo 

£  <1 


i"  (M  W 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY    INDUSTRY 


13 


Comparisons  between  the  milk  production  for  1899  and  1924  for 
the  Pacific  and  mountain  states  show  increases  of  146.8  per  cent  and 
229.1  per  cent,  respectively.  Comparing  1924  with  1919,  the  moun- 
tain states  showed  an  increase  of  39.2  per  cent  while  that  for  the 
Pacific  states  was  22  per  cent.  California  did  not  expand  its  milk 
production  as  rapidly  as  Oregon  and  Washington  during  the  twenty- 
five-year  period,  although  the  five  years  1919-1924  give  evidence  of 
a  greater  relative  growth,  which,  however,  is  far  below  that  of  the 
mountain  states. 

Population  gains  for  both  divisions  of  the  western  states  have  been 
large,  that  for  the  mountain  states  from  1900-1925  being  approxi- 
mately 129.5  per  cent,  while  for  the  Pacific  states  it  has  been  171.2 
per  cent.  Census  estimates  for  the  five  year  1920-1925  indicate  a 
17.7  per  cent  gain  for  the  Pacific  states  and  15.2  per  cent  for  the 
mountain  states. 

Unlike  the  entire  country,  milk  production  in  the  eleven  western 
states  (table  13,. p.  40)  during  the  first  quarter  of  the  present  century 
gained  more  rapidly  than  population.  The  same  was  true  for  the  five 
years  1919-1924. 

TABLE  2 

Percentage  Distribution  of  Dairy  Cattle,  on  Farms,  1880-1925, 

United  States 


Division  and  state 


United  States. 


Geographic  Divisions: 

New  England 

Middle  Atlantic 

East  North  Central . 

West  North  Central 

South  Atlantic 

East  South  Central.. 

West  South  Central. 

Mountain 

Pacific 

Mountain: 

Montana 

Idaho 

Wyoming 

Colorado 

New  Mexico 

Arizona 

Utah 

Nevada 

Pacific: 

Washington 

Oregon 

California 


1880 


100.0 


6  00 

19.64 

24  04 

19.38 

10.29 

9.21 

8.05 

1  00 

2.39 

0  09 
0.10 
0  03 
0  23 
0.10 
0  07 
0.26 
0  11 

0.22 
0.48 
1.69 


1890 


100  0 


4.98 

15.32 

22.72 

27.18 

8.29 

7.95 

9.19 

1.32 

3.04 

0  15 

0  17 
0  07 
0  47 
0.11 
0  03 
0  28 
0  06 

0  43 
0  69 
1.92 


1900 


100  0 


5.21 

15  19 

23.12 

26.42 

8.07 

7.38 

9  54 

1.92 

3.13 


0.63 
0.71 
1.79 


1910 
(as  re- 
ported) 


100.0 


4.08 
12.59 
23.42 
25.83 

8.78 
7.89 
10.91 
2.49 
4.01 

0.38 
0.42 
0  16 
0  70 
0.25 
0  14 
0.37 
0.08 

0.90 
0.84 
2.27 


1920 


100.0 


4.28 
12.70 
25.67 
22.92 
8.50 
8.53 
9.57 
3.15 
4  68 

0.65 
0.59 
0.18 
0.98 
0.19 
0.16 
0.34 
0.07 

1  21 
0.92 

2  55 


1925- 


100.0 


4.49 
13.33 

28.50 
20.87 
7  54 
7.76 
8.26 
3.40 
5  85 

0.59 
0.79 
0.19 
0.93 
0.22 
0.19 
0  40 

0  10 

1  51 
1.16 
3.18 


1925-b 


100.0 


3.64 
10.64 
24.72 
27.51 
7.70 
7.61 
9.59 
3.75 
4.84 

0.83 

0  71 
0.29 

1  00 

0  28 
0.16 
0.39 
0.08 

1  26 
1.00 
2.58 


Source  of  data:  Calculations  by  author  based  upon  table  1. 


14 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


An  attempt  was  made  in  obtaining  the  1925  farm  census  to 
differentiate  more  clearly  between  dairy  cattle  and  other  cattle.  The 
returns  (table  1)  show  clearly  the  degree  to  which  California  special- 
izes in  dairy  cattle  compared  with  other  states. 


TABLE  3 
Cows  and  Heifers  Two  Years  Old  or  Over  Kept  for  Milk,  United  States, 

1920-1927 

(Thousands,  i.e.,  000  omitted) 


State  and  division 

1920 

1921 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925 

1926 

1927 

Percent 
1927  is 
of  1920 

176 

98 

292 

150 

22 

114 

1,499 

131 

893 

171 

96 

298 

154 

22 

115 

1,477 

130 

893 

165 

94 

302 

160 

23 

115 

1,462 

127 

900 

162 

90 

303 

164 

23 

116 

1,449 

126 

925 

160 

86 

298 

157 

22 

116 

1,422 

124 

898 

156 

85 

287 

148 

22 

118 

1,383 

123 

889 

150 

80 

288 

140 

22 

116 

1,362 

.    123 

862 

148 
78 
285 
138 
21 
110 
1,318 
119 
845 

84  1 

79  6 

97  6 

92  0 

95  4 

96  5 

87.9 

90.8 

Pennsylvania 

94.6 

North  Atlantic 

3,375 

3,356 

3,348 

3,358 

3,283 

3,211 

3,143 

3,062 

90.7 

Ohio 

918 

659 

1,047 

824 

1,832 

1,359 

1,120 

800 

430 

467 

535 

695 

927 

653 

1,027 

815 

1,858 

1,405 

1,120 

792 

426 

462 

540 

709 

936 

659 

997 

823 

1,882 

1,503 

1,160 

799 

440 

480 

594 

723 

936 

652 

1,029 

831 

1,921 

1,525 

1,220 

799 

457 

500 

606 

730 

964 

659 

1,029 

847 

1,981 

1,535 

1,280 

805 

494 

520 

612 

737 

964 

679 

1,049 

850 

2,015 

1,560 

1,341 

835 

520 

544 

625 

760 

945 

665 

1,039 

858 

2,055 

1,560 

1,341 

827 

530 

539 

625 

730 

926 

645 

988 

841 

2,014 

1,529 

1,314 

827 

498 

534 

613 

715 

100.8 

97.8 

94.4 

102.1 

109.9 

112.5 

117.3 

103.3 

115.8 

114.3 

114.6 

Kansas 

102.9 

10,686 

10,734 

10,996 

11,206 

11,463 

11,742 

11,714 

11,444 

107.1 

33 
166 
377 
193 
300 
195 
408 

73 

32 
169 
384 
197 
306 
193 
396 

75 

32 
172 
392 
201 
312 
187 
396 

78 

33 
174 
402 
207 
309 
185 
376 

82 

34 
179 
385 
215 
306 
182 
366 

82 

34 
184 
376 
255 
312 
176 
354 

70 

35 
182 
347 
221 
303 
155 
340 

74 

35 
178 
326 
207 
303 
158 
343 

78 

106.1 

107.2 

86.5 

107.3 

101.0 

81  0 

84  1 

Florida 

106  8 

1,745 

1,752 

1,770 

1,768 

1,749 

1,731 

1,657 

1,628 

93  3 

455 
445 
420 
475 
450 
220 
564 
930 

450 
445 
410 
451 
428 
209 
536 
948 

450 
453 
390 
446 
436 
204 
556 
995 

462 
467 
380 
437 
396 
203 
564 
1,004 

457 

458 
370 
433 
378 
205 
554 
1,014 

473 
462 
365 
411 
382 
206 
582 
985 

464 
434 
340 
379 
374 
200 
570 
936 

464 
425 
350 
379 
374 
210 
581 
973 

101.9 

95.5 

83.3 

79.8 

83.1 

95.4 

103.0 

Texas 

104.6 

3,959 

3,877 

3,930 

3,913 

3,869 

3,866 

3,697 

3,756 

94  9 

Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY    INDUSTRY 


15 


TABLE  3— 

(Continued) 

State  and  division 

1920 

1921 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925 

1926 

1927 

Percent 
1927  is 
of  1920 

148 

118 

55 

202 

58 

35 

72 

14 

245 

200 

515 

148 

122 

57 

202 

61 

30 

72 

15 

250 

202 

530 

155 

128 

59 

206 

63 

35 

75 

16 

255 

202 

550 

162 

134 

62 

209 

63 

36 

80 

17 

270 

205 

580 

174 

147 

64 

217 

63 

36 

84 

18 

275 

218 

595 

187 

160 

66 

224 

64 

37 

87 

19 

283 

225 

579 

192 

163 

69 

224 

64 

32 

88 

20 

275 

214 

596 

188 

170 

70 

224 

64 

35 

89 

20 

264 

214 

596 

127.0 

144  1 

127.3 

110.9 

110  3 

100  0 

Utah 

123  6 

142.8 

107.7 

107.0 

115.7 

1,662 

1,689 

1,744 

1,818 

1,891 

1,931 

1,937 

1,934 

116.4 

United  States 

21,427 

21,408 

21,788 

22,063 

22,255 

22,481 

22,148 

21,824 

101.8 

Sources  of  data:  1920-1926,  17.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Monthly  Supplements  to  Crops 
and  Markets;  1927,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Crops  and  Markets. 

Comparisons  of  changes  in  the  milk-cow  population  since  1920 
can  be  made  more  readily  from  the  estimates  of  the  Bureau  of  Agri- 
cultural Economics  as  listed  in  table  3.  From  1920  to  1927  these 
estimates  indicate  that  there  has  been  only  slight  gain  in  the  number 
of  milk  cows  and  heifers  (397,000  or  1.85  per  cent)  in  the  United 
States — far  less  than  the  growth  in  population  (11.4  per  cent).  With 
the  growth  of  cow-testing  associations  and  the  resultant  higher  pro- 
duction per  cow,  the  actual  gain  in  milk  production  has  been  greater 
than  the  mere  comparison  between  the  numbers  of  milk  cows  would 
indicate.  Comparisons  between  either  milk  production  or  milk  cows 
should  be  used  in  a  general  way.  Although  fluctuations  in  production 
are  undoubtedly  less  than  is  the  case  with  many  other  agricultural 
products,  production  can  be  increased  or  decreased  materially  by 
matters  of  management  and  feeding,  a  fact  which  is  often  overlooked 
in  making  comparisons.  That  the  increase  in  milk  production  has 
been  less  than  the  actual  requirements  of  the  country  can  be  seen  by 
noting  the  foreign-trade  balance  in  dairy  products  (fig.  39,  p.  152). 

During  the  past  seven  years  the  western  and  north  central  states 
have  made  actual  gains  in  the  milk-cow  population,  while  the  other 
sections  have  experienced  decreases  (fig.  1). 

During  and  immediately  after  the  World  War  prices  of  dairy 
products  did  not  rise  as  rapidly  as  those  of  several  of  the  other  chief 
farm  products.  Prices  for  dairy  products  fell  along  with  those  for 
general  commodities  but  the  diminution  was  less  than  for  cereals  and 
meat  animals.  There  had  not  been  a  pronounced  movement  into  the 
dairy  business  as  there  was  into  many  other  lines  of  agricultural 


16 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


endeavor,  partly  because  of  the  moderate  price,  and  in  part  due  to  the 
difficulties  involved  in  expanding  the  dairy  output  greatly.  Increased 
dairy  production  calls  for  a  proportional  increase  in  labor  require- 
ments and  considerable  time.  Furthermore,  new  dairy  farms  call 
for  initial  investments  of  considerable  capital.  Various  states  have 
vigorously  prosecuted  tuberculosis-eradication  work,  which  perhaps 
has  made  for  a  slower  increase. 


Mi/lions 
f/OOO 

/oooo 

9000 
8  000 
7000 

eooo 
5000 

4000 
-3000 
ZOOO 
IOOO 

o 


Y//\  January    19Z0 
January    1927 


North  Atlantic 


North  Central 


5outh  Aflontic 


Souih  Central 


Western 


Fig.  1. — Milk  cows  in  the  United  States,  January,  1920,  and  January,  1927. 
The  north  central  states  contain  over  50  per  cent  of  the  milk  cows  in  the  United 
States.  California  is  included  in  the  western  states  and  contains  about  30  per 
cent  of  the  milk  cows  in  this  group.  Numbers  have  increased  only  in  the  north 
central  and  western  groups  since  1920.     Data  from  table  3. 

California. — The  census  of  1860  reported  a  number  of  dairy  cattle 
in  the  Pacific  states,  especially  in  California  and  Oregon.3  Many  of 
these  cattle  were  native,  milked  on  account  of  the  demands  for  dairy 
products  resulting  from  the  influx  of  settlers. 


3  The  census  of  1860  enumerated  the  number  of  milk  cows  per   100  persons, 
together  with  the  production  of  butter  and  cheese  per  cow,  as  follows: 


Section 

Milk  cows  to  every 
100  persons 

Butter  per  cow — 
pounds 

Cheese  per  cow — 
pounds 

1860 

1850 

1860 

1850 

1860 

1850 

21 

24 
27 
29 
56 

27 

22 

25 
28 
30 
16 

27 

75 
87 
58 
22 
15 
53 

72 
80 
49 
19 
10 
49 

32 
25 
10 
»/u 
5 
12 

44 

31 

13 

6/l6 

2XA 

16 

Dept.  Interior,  U.  S.  Census  Office,  Agriculture  in  the  United  States  in  1860, 
pp.  cxviii-cxix.     1864. 


BUL.  437]  ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY  17 

Compared  with  that  in  the  United  States,  the  expansion  of  the 
dairy-cattle  population  in  California  has  been,  omitting  the  period 
1890-1900,  far  more  rapid  since  1880,  which  might  have  been  expected 
owing  to  the  relatively  greater  growth  of  the  human  population.  The 
increase  in  the  estimated  milk  production  in  the  state  has  been  rela- 
tively larger  and  in  addition  it  has  been  more  pronounced  than  the 
increase  in  the  number  of  milk  cows,  indicating  a  marked  improve- 
ment in  the  production  per  cow  since  1889. 

The  census  of  1860  indicated  that  the  main  dairy-cattle  sections 
were  two:  (1)  the  San  Francisco  Bay  area,  and  (2)  the  Sacramento 
Valley.  The  bay  counties  (Marin,  Sonoma,  Napa,  Solano,  Contra 
Costa,  Alameda,  Santa  Clara,  San  Mateo,  and  San  Francisco))  con- 
tained 36.2  per  cent  of  the  dairy  cows,  while  the  Sacramento  Valley 
accounted  for  30.2  per  cent.  The  San  Joaquin  Valley  claimed  19.01 
per  cent  of  the  animals  and  outside  of  the  three  sections  mentioned 
dairying  was  of  minor  importance.  During  the  two  decades,  1860- 
1870,  and  1870-1880,  the  north  and  south  coast  sections  (see  tables 
4,  5)  witnessed  the  greatest  growth  both  numerically  and  relatively, 
while  the  Sacramento  and  San  Joaquin  valleys  lost  in  numbers. 

A  general  shifting  of  the  dairy-cow  population  of  the  state  began 
in  the  period  1880-1890.  The  coastal  sections,  although  maintaining 
approximately  the  same  number  of  dairy  cattle,  began  to  lose  their 
relative  positions.  Almost  58  per  cent  of  the  dairy  cattle  in  the  state 
were  found  in  these  two  geographic  divisions  in  1880,  while  in  1925 
there  remained  less  than  one-third.  The  Sacramento  Valley,  although 
gaining  in  absolute  number  of  dairy  cattle  since  1880,  has  not  in- 
creased so  rapidly  as  either  the  San  Joaquin  Valley  or  southern 
California  (figs.  2  and  3). 

The  San  Joaquin  Valley  has  shown  the  most  rapid  growth  of 
dairy-cow  population  in  the  state,  containing  one-tenth  of  the  animals 
in  1880  and  one-third  in  1925.  This  growth  has  largely  been  the 
result  of  the  development  of  irrigation  and  the  subsequent  growing 
of  alfalfa. 

Between  1870  and  1890  the  southern  California  dairy-cow  popu- 
lation started  to  grow  rapidly  and  this  growth  continued  until  1900. 
Between  1900  and  1920  this  section  of  the  state  held  its  relative  posi- 
tion. During  the  five-year  period  1920-1925,  its  dairy  cows  increased 
34,755,  making  a  relatively  rapid  growth.  The  expansion  of  the  dairy 
industry  in  the  southern  section  of  the  state  was  occasioned  mainly 
by  the  rapid  growth  in  population  and  the  subsequent  demand  for 
market  milk.    In  relative  importance  the  southern  section  of  the  state 


18 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


ranked  next  to  the  San  Joaquin  Valley  in  1925.  Since  1919-1920, 
when  butterfat-production  records  were  first  made  available,  there 
has  been  a  marked  development  in  many  of  the  mountain  counties  of 
the  state,  more  distant  from  the  chief  centers  of  population. 


tach    Dot    -  IOOO    Cows 


Fig.  2. — Dairy  cattle  on  farms,  California,  1890.  Until  the  great  expansion 
in  the  irrigated  areas  of  the  state,  the  dairy  industry  was  largely  confined  to  the 
coast  sections.  The  beginnings  of  the  industry  in  the  San  Joaquin  Valley  can  be 
detected.  Relatively  the  Sacramento  Valley  was  a  more  important  dairy  section 
in  1890  than  in  1927.     One  dot  =  1,000  cows.     Data  from  table  1. 


BUL.  437]  ECONOMIC   ASPECTS  OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY 


19 


Each   Dot    -   IOOO  Cou/s 


Fig.  3. — Milk  cows  in  California,  1927.  The  largest  numbers  of  dairy  cattle 
are  found  in  the  San  Joaquin  Valley.  Increases  particularly  in  the  vicinity  of 
Los  Angeles  have  been  marked  during  the  past  few  years.  Pasture  conditions  in 
the  coast  sections  north  of  Los  Angeles  County  make  for  a  considerable  concen- 
tration in  Humboldt,  Sonoma,  Marin,  Alameda,  Santa  Clara,  Monterey,  and  Santa 
Barbara  counties.  One  dot  =  1,000  cows.  Data  from  E.  E.  Kaufman,  Agricul- 
tural Statistician,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Bur.  of  Agricultural  Economics,  cooperating 
with  California  State  Dept.  Agr.,  Sacramento,  Calif. 


20 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  4 
Dairy  Cows  on  Farms,  California,  1860-1925 

(Thousands,  i.e.,  000  omitted) 


California 

Geographic  Divisions: 

North  coast  counties. 

South  coast  counties. 

Sacramento  Valley 

San  Joaquin  Valley 

Southern  California ... 

Mountain  counties 

North  coast  counties: 

Del  Norte 

Humboldt 

Klamath 

Trinity 

Mendocino 

Lake 

Sonoma 

Napa 

Marin 

Indian  Reservations- 
South  coast  counties: 

San  Francisco 

Alameda 

San  Mateo 

Contra  Costa 

Santa  Clara 

Santa  Cruz 

San  Benito 

Monterey 

San  Luis  Obispo 

Sacramento  Valley: 

Shasta 

Tehama 

Glenn 

Butte 

Yuba 

Colusa 

Sutter 

Nevada 

Placer 

Sacramento 

Yolo 

Solano 

El  Dorado 

Amador 

San  Joaquin  Valley: 

San  Joaquin 

Calaveras 

Stanislaus 

Tuolumne 

Merced 

Mariposa 

Madera 

Fresno 

Tulare 

Kings 

Kern 


205 


42 


16 


1870 


164 


1890 


317 


1900 


307 


1910 


382 


74 
72 
54 
109 
57 
17 

3 
18 

1 
5 
1 

20 
5 

20 


1920 


502 


62 

173 

77 

18 


1925- 


557 


112 
17 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY 


21 


TABLE  4—  (Continued) 
(Thousands,  i.e.,  000  omitted) 


1860 

1870 

1880 

1890 

1900 

1910 

1920 

1925-a 

1925-b 

Southern  California: 

3 

2 

4 
1 
5 

2 

10 
2 

10 
4 
3 

9 
3 
17 
4 
6 
4 
6 

10 
2 

17 
2 
5 
4 
9 
8 

6 
2 
2 
3 

5 

2 

24 
5 
4 
5 
7 
24 

7 
2 
3 

2 
2 

8 
3 
37 
10 
7 
8 
10 
28 

7 
2 
3 
2 
1 

8 

3 

3 

1 

2 

1 

38 

10 

7 

9 

San  Diego 

2 

1 

4 

7 

11 

29 

Northern  and  Eastern 
Mountain  counties: 
Siskiyou 

6 

3 

4 

2 
2 
4 

1 

4 
3 
3 
4 
1 

6 
3 
3 
4 
1 

8 
4 

2 
3 

1 
1 
1 
1 

3 

Plumas 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

Eighth  census  of  the  U.  S.,  Agriculture, 
Ninth  census  of  the  U.  S.,  Statistics  of 


Tenth  census  of  the  U.  S.,  Statistics  of 


Sources  of  data: 

1860:  Dept.  Interior,  Census  Office, 
(p.  10).     1864. 

1870,  Dept.  Interior,  Census  Office, 
agriculture  (p.  105). 

1880,  Dept.  Interior,  Census  Office, 
agriculture  (p.  144).     1883. 

1890,  Dept.  Interior,  Census  Office.  Eleventh  census  of  the  U.  S.,  Eeport  on 
the  statistics  of  agriculture   (p.  278).     1895. 

1900,  Dept.  Interior,  Census  Office.  Twelfth  census  of  the  U.  S.,  5  :  420-422. 
1902. 

1910,  calculations  by  author  based  upon  census  returns  in  Dept.  Commerce 
and  Labor,  Bur.  Census.  Thirteenth  census  of  the  U.  S.,  Abstract,  with  supplement 
for  California  (pp.  638-643).  1913.  The  1910  statistics  represent  81.83  per  cent 
of  the  actual  number  recorded.  Those  recorded  were  animals  born  before  January 
1,  1909.     The  calculations  represent  estimates  of  those  two  years  old  or  over. 

1920,  Dept.  Commerce,  Bur.  Census.  Fourteenth  census  of  the  U.  S.,  State 
compendium,  California  (p.  80).     1924. 

1925a,  Dept.  Commerce,  Bur.  Census.  U.  S.  census  of  agriculture:  1925.  Cali- 
fornia (pp.  26-33).     1926. 

19256,  computations  by  author  from  data  in  1925a. 

Notes  regarding  changes  in  boundaries  of  counties:  Colusa — part  taken  to 
form  Glenn  in  1891;  Del  Norte — part  annexed  to  Siskiyou  between  1880-1890; 
Fresno — part  taken  to  form  Madera  in  1893,  and  part  annexed  to  Kings  in  1909; 
Glenn — organized  from  part  of  Colusa,  1891;  Humboldt — part  of  Klamath  an- 
nexed in  1874;  Imperial — organized  from  part  of  San  Diego  in  1907;  Kings — 
organized  from  part  of  Tulare  in  1893  and  part  of  Fresno  annexed  in  1909; 
Lake — part  annexed  to  Napa  in  1872;  Los  Angeles — part  taken  to  form  Orange 
in  1889 ;  Madera — organized  from  part  of  Fresno  in  1893 ;  Modoc — organized 
from  part  of  Siskiyou  in  1874;  Monterey — part  taken  to  form  San  Benito  in  1874; 
Napa — part  of  Lake  annexed  in  1872;  Orange — organized  from  part  of  Los 
Angeles  in  1889;  Biverside — organized  from  parts  of  San  Bernardino  and  San 
Diego  in  1893;  San  Benito — organized  from  part  of  Monterey  in  1874;  San 
Bernardino — part  taken  to  form  part  of  Biverside  in  1893;  San  Diego — part 
taken  to  form  part  of  Riverside  in  1893;  part  taken  to  form  Imperial  in  1907; 
Santa  Barbara — part  taken  to  form  Ventura  in  1871;  Siskiyou — part  taken  to 
form  Modoc  in  1874,  a  part  of  Klamath  annexed  in  1874,  and  a  part  of  Del 
Norte  annexed  between  1880  and  1890;  Tulare — part  taken  to  form  Kings  in 
1893;  Ventura — organized  from  part  of  Santa  Barbara  in  1871. 


22 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  5 

Percentage  Distribution  of  Dairy  Cattle  on  Farms  in  California, 

1860-1925 


California. 


Geographic  Divisions: 

North  coast  counties. 

South  coast  counties. 

Sacramento  Valley 

San  Joaquin  Valley 

Mountain  counties 

Southern  California... 
North  coast  counties: 

Del  Norte 

Humboldt 

Trinity 

Mendocino 

Lake 

Sonoma 

Napa 

Mann 

Indian  Reservations... 
South  coast  counties: 

San  Francisco 

Alameda 

San  Mateo 

Contra  Costa 

Santa  Clara 

Santa  Cruz 

San  Benito 

Monterey 

San  Luis  Obispo 

Sacramento  Valley: 

Shasta 

Tehama 

Glenn 

Butte 

Yuba 

Colusa 

Sutter 

Nevada 

Plaser 

Sacramento 

Yolo 

Solano 

El  Dorado 

Amador 

San  Joaquin  Valley: 

San  Joaquin 

Calaveras 

Stanislaus 

Tuolumne 

Merced 

Mariposa 

Madera 

Fresno 

Tulare 

Kings 

Kern 


100.00 


20.48 
22.15 
30.20 
19.01 
3.91 
4.25 

0.44 
0.79. 
0.37, 
4.05 


7.81 
2.90 
3.78 


0.58 
7.74 
2.40 
4.91 
3.60 
1.00 


1.48 
0.44 


0.84 
2.16 


2.63 
1.68 
2.14 
1.82 
0.58 
1.03 
5.64 
4.41 
2.49 
2.14 
2.63 

3.75 
1.77 
4.62 
0.86 
0.47 
0.88 


4.24 
2.42 


1870 
100.00 


28.76 
25.13 


11.22 


0.43 
3.47 
0.26 
2.09 
1.11 
9.12 
0.69 
11.37 


1.93 
2.23 
3.13 
3.27 
4.60 
1.32 


5.71 

2.93 


0.74 
1.31 


1.42 
1.77 
1  62 
2.21 
0.70 
0.95 
5  51 
2.25 
2.51 
2.32 
0.90 

4.27 
1.22 
1.38 
1.02 
0.53 
0.56 


0.61 
1.24 


0.38 


100.00 


31  59 
26.06 
17.74 
9.99 
7.22 
7.40 

1.04 
4.99 
0.29 
2.13 
0  70 
8.73 
1.95 
11.76 


2.01 
2.58 
3.19 
2.03 
4.36 
1.64 
1.29 
2.71 
6.27 

0.93 
0.89 


1.29 
1.10 
1.11 
0.92 
0.86 
0.88 
3.54 
1.58 
1.94 
1.64 
1.07 

1.78 
0.98 
1.03 
1.10 
1.04 
0.30 


21 


0.75 
0.75 


1890 


100  00 


26.70 
28.50 
16.72 
11.22 
5.21 
11.65 

0.90 
4.70 
0.22 
1.67 
0.66 
7.75 
1.79 
9.00 


1.39 
1.94 
3.75 
1.91 
2.55 
1.54 
1.72 
4.88 
8.83 

1.09 
0.79 


1.11 
0.53 
1.11 
0.76 
0.64 
0.95 
3.27 
1.21 
2.89 
1.24 
1.13 

1.55 
0.61 
0.85 
0.31 
0.96 
0.52 


1.88 
3.01 


1.52 


1900 


100.00 


28.12 
20.66 
14.19 
15.71 
6.19 
15.13 

1.09 
6.87 
0.23 
1.96 
0.63 
6.94 
1.44 
8.90 
0.06 

1.63 
2.71 
2.59 
1.98 
2.40 
1.51 
1.30 
3.12 
3.42 

0.87 
0.69 
0.44 
0.87 
0.48 
0.56 
0.89 
0.60 
0.68 
2.86 
1.94 
1.84 
0.85 
0.62 

2.59 
0.47 
1.44 
0.49 
1.33 
0.25 
0  35 
4.45 
2.26 
1.10 
0.97 


1910 


100  00 


19.24 
18.80 
14.07 
28.43 
4.56 
14.90 

0.76 
4.62 
0.17 
1.38 
0.32 
5.34 
1.34 
5.31 


0.35 
1.96 
1.74 
2.03 
2.58 
0.90 
1.03 
3.00 
5.18 

0.63 
0.74 
0.79 
1.01 
0.48 
0.67 
1.44 
0.51 
0.52 
2.56 
1.54 
1.99 
0.60 
0.59 

2.55 
0.39 


42 

38 

21 

19 

34 

4.76 

5.73 

3.98 

1.48 


1920 


100.00 


18.28 
15.93 
12.34 
34.51 
3.59 
15.35 

0.79 
4.81 
0.08 
1.35 
0.38 
4.97 
0.96 
4.94 


0.04 
2.35 
1.38 
1.98 
2.40 
0  67 
0.68 
2.98 
3.46 

0.31 
0.64 
1.09 
1.18 
0.36 
0.56 
1.07 
0.37 
0.41 
2.51 
1.43 
1.68 
0.47 
0.25 

4.23 
0.17 
7.22 
0.17 
6.30 
0.04 
1.05 
4.64 
5.76 
3.60 
1.33 


1925-a 


100.00 


17.00 
15.83 
10.83 
33.44 
3.03 
19.87 


2.00 
1.76 
1.53 
2.13 
0.61 
0.47 
3.75 
3.58 

0.44 
0.61 
1.36 
0.97 
0.45 
0.58 
0.70 
0.24 
0.42 
1.76 
1.56 
1.19 
0.35 
0.19 

4.42 
0.11 
6.61 
0.18 
6.19 
0.01 
1.11 
4.08 
5.38 
3.58 
1.78 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY    INDUSTRY 


23 


TABLE  5—  (Continued) 


i860 


1870 


1890 


1900 


1910 


1920 


1925- 


1925-b 


Southern  California: 

Santa  Barbara 

Ventura 

Los  Angeles 

San  Bernardino 

Orange 

Riverside 

San  Diego 

Imperial 

Northern  and  eastern 
mountain  counties: 

Siskiyou 

Modoc 


Plumas 

Sierra 

Alpine ... 

Mono 

Inyo 


1.32 


1.65 
0.36 


1.50 
0.38 


1.81 
0.49 
2.36 
1  00 


0.87 


0.77 


1  74 


3.02 


0.84 
0.05 


1.09 
2.11 

0.54 
0.53 

0.33 
0.48 


1.72 
1 .13 
0.93 
1.71 
0.66 
0  15 
0.32 
0.61 


3.17 

0.76 
3.28 
1.37 
0.93 


2.13 


1.26 
0.96 
0.82 
1.25 
0.32 
0  05 
0  21 
0.34 


2  80 
0.82 
5.38 
1.22 
1.85 
1.16 
1.90 


1.84 
0.84 
1.04 
1.23 
0.44 
0.13 
0.17 
0.51 


2  50 
0  57 
4.39 
0.65 
1.32 
1.12 
2.28 
2.07 


1.50 
0.62 
0.62 
0.74 
0.33 
0.16 
0.10 
0  49 


1  04 
0.44 
4.82 
0.94 
0.80 
1.02 
1.44 
4.86 


1.46 
0.45 
0.55 
0.40 
0.32 
0.04 
0.03 
0  35 


1.40 
0.54 
6.60 
1.83 
1  20 
1.50 
1.79 
5.02 


1.24 
0  42 
0.45 
0.30 
0.24 
0.04 
0  04 
0  30 


1.38 
0.54 
6.54 
1.79 
1.18 
1.50 


92 


1.40 
0.68 
0.54 
0.41 
0.24 
0.05 
0.05 
0.33 


Source  of  data:   All  computations  by  the  author  based  upon  data  in  table  4. 
See  notes  at  foot  of  table  4. 


Estimates  made  January  1,  1927,  indicate  that  the  number  of 
cows  and  heifers  kept  for  milk  in  California  has  increased  15.7  per 
cent  since  January  1,  1920  (table  3,  p.  14).  Estimates  based  on 
careful  analyses  of  the  data  on  hand  (table  11,  p.  38)  indicate  that 
actual  butterfat  production  in  the  state  has  increased  between  30 
and  40  per  cent  during  the  years  1920-1926.  Exact  comparison  is 
impossible  because  of  differences  between  calendar  and  fiscal-year 
statistics.  Estimated  population  growth  during  the  period  has  been 
about  33  per  cent.  The  apparent  increase  in  the  imports  of  dairy 
products  into  the  state  has  no  doubt  come  about  through  a  larger  per- 
capita  consumption  and  a  greatly  increased  export  of  concentrated 
milk. 

Taking  the  eleven  western  states  as  a  unit  there  is  not,  from 
the  evidence  at  hand,  a  shortage  of  dairy  products.  While  receipts 
at  only  a  few  of  the  markets  in  the  United  States  are  available, 
indications  are  that  the  shipments  from  the  western  states  (in  milk 
equivalents)  are  greater  than  the  shipments  into  the  area  from  other 
parts  of  the  nation.  The  area  apparently  has  a  surplus  of  butter  and 
concentrated  milk  and  a  deficiency  of  cheese. 

The  percentage  of  milk  cows  of  the  United  States  in  the  eleven 
western  states  is  approximately  the  same  as  the  percentage  of  the 
country's  population  living  in  this  area.     On  account  of  the  larger 


24 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


production  of  milk  per  cow  in  this  area,  the  percentage  of  milk 
produced  (1924)  exceeded  the  percentage  of  milk  cows  reported  on 
July  1,  1925.  During  1924  the  western  states  produced  10.7  per  cent 
of  the  milk  with  approximately  8.5  per  cent  of  the  milk  cows.  Cali- 
fornia's percentages  were  3.7  and  2.6,  respectively.  It  is  of  passing 
interest  to  note  that  California's  estimated  population  on  July  1, 
1926,  made  up  3.7  per  cent  of  the  total  of  the  continental  United 
States.  On  January  1,  1927,  California  possessed  596,000  milk  cows 
(2.73  per  cent  of  the  number  in  the  United  States). 

Ratio  of  Dairy  Cows  to  Dairy  Heifers. — There  was  in  California 
on  January  1,  1927,  one  heifer  (one  to  two  years  old)  for  each  4.4 
cows  kept  for  milk  (table  6),  compared  with  the  ratio  1:5.3  for  the 
United  States.  The  western  states  since  1920  and  California  since 
1923  have  maintained  a  smaller  ratio  than  the  nation  and  its  sub- 
divisions, indicating  that  the  western  section  is  increasing  the  number 
of  dairy  cows  more  rapidly  than  other  sections.  Accompanying  the 
decline  in  milk  cows  in  1926  was  an  increase  in  the  number  of  heifers 
being  raised. 

TABLE  6 

Number  of  Dairy  Cows  per  Heifer,  United  States  and  Subdivisions, 

1920-1927 


Date 

United 

States 

North 
Atlantic 

states 

North 
Central 

states 

South 

Atlantic 

states 

South 
Central 
states 

Western 

states 

California 

Jan.  1 

1920 

1921 

4.8 
5.2 
5.4 
5.3 
5.4 
5.4 
5.7 
5.3 

5  5 

6  3 
6.9 
6.6 
7.0 
7.1 
7.5 
6.9 

4.8 
4.9 
5.1 
5.2 
5.4 
5.2 
5  6 
5.2 

4.9 
5.2 
5  6 
5.3 
5  2 
5.7 
6.1 
5.6 

4.6 
5.0 
5.4 
5.0 
4.8 
5  0 
5.3 
5  1 

4.6 
5.0 
5.0 
4.8 
4.6 
4.6 
4.6 
4.6 

4.5 
5.2 

1922 

5.5 

1923 

4.7 

1924 

3.9 

1925 

1926 

4.4 
4.4 

1927 

4.4 

Source  of  data:  Computations  by  author  based  upon  data  in  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr., 
Crops  and  Markets,  4:  p.  38.     1927. 


Warren  and  Pearson4  call  attention  to  certain  sections  of  the 
country  (north  central  and  south  central  states)  where  feed  is  cheap 
and  many  heifers  of  a  dual-purpose  type  are  raised.  This,  however, 
is  not  generally  true  of  California  at  present  and  the  indicated  in- 
crease, therefore,  in  dairy  cattle  will  be  relatively  greater  in  Califor- 
nia than  the  figures  in  table  6  would  indicate. 


4  Warren,  G.  F.,  and  F.  A.  Pearson.     Katio  of  dairy  cows  to  dairy  heifers. 
N.  Y.  State  Col.  Agr.,  Farm  Economics  (p.  506).     Aug.,  1926. 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY    INDUSTRY 


25 


p  9*  g  g 

Co  ^  >— !  tr1  3 


26  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


GEOGRAPHIC    DISTRIBUTION   OF    DAIRYING 

United  States. — The  production  of  dairy  products  closely  follows 
the  milk-cow  population,  the  latter  being  generally  found  in  sections 
where  hay  is  grown  extensively  or  climatic  conditions  favor  the 
maintenance  of  green  pastures  (fig.  4).  Population  exerts  an  in- 
fluence on  this  distribution,  on  account  of  the  economic  advantages 
of  producing  market  milk  in  proximity  to  centers  of  human  popula- 
tion. On  January  1,  1927,  the  northeastern  states  (north  of  the 
Ohio  river  and  east  of  the  Mississippi)  claimed  almost  39  per  cent 
of  the  milk  cows  of  the  country.  On  the  addition  of  the  west  north 
central  states  to  this  area  the  percentage  rises  to  nearly  65  per  cent. 

Numerically,  the  southern  states  are  second  in  importance  in  the 
dairy-cattle  population,  and  in  these  states  it  is  fairly  well  distributed. 
(Number  of  cows  and  heifers,  two  years  old  or  over,  kept  for  milk 
in  the  south  Atlantic  and  south  central  states,  January  1,  1927,  = 
5,384,000  or  24.67  per  cent  of  the  total  in  the  country.)  Production 
is  low  in  the  South  (fig.  7,  p.  39). 

Scattered  over  the  arid  western  section  of  the  United  States  are 
relatively  large  numbers  of  dairy  cattle  in  the  irrigation  centers,  and 
in  addition  to  this  development  there  is  considerable  concentration 
of  dairy  cattle  in  the  more  humid  section  of  the  North  Pacific  Coast 
(fig.  4).  The  aggregate  number  of  milk  cows  in  the  western  section 
(Pacific  Coast  states  and  mountain  states)  is  small  in  comparison  with 
the  United  States  as  a  whole  (1,934,000  or  8.9  per  cent). 

PURE-BRED    DAIRY    CATTLE 

The  1920  census  showed  that  approximately  2.9  per  cent  of  the 
dairy  cattle  of  the  United  States  were  pure-bred,  while  California 
returns  showed  2.5  per  cent  (fig.  5)  Most  of  the  pure-bred  cattle 
in  1920  were  in  the  northeastern  states.  Of  the  registered  dairy 
cattle  in  1920  about  58  per  cent  were  Holstein-Friesian,  25  per  cent 
Jerseys,  9  per  cent  Guernseys,  3  per  cent  Ayrshires,  and  1  per  cent 
Brown  Swiss.  Unfortunately,  data  are  not  available  from  the  1925 
farm  census.  Taking  the  yearly  registrations  from  1915  to  1925  as 
a  basis,  the  increase  in  the  number  of  registrations  for  the  three  breeds 
were  as  follows:  Guernsey,  184.8  per  cent;  Holstein-Friesian,  72.4 
per  cent;  and  Jersey,  54  per  cent.5 


5  Straight-line  trends  were  fitted  to  the  yearly  registration  data,  the  resulting 

equations  being:      Guernsey 2/=20,464.9+1965.8  x 

Holstein y  =  98,703.5+5243.9  x 

Jersey 2/=43, 617. 9+1856.9  x 

with  origins  at  1920. 


Bui/.  437]  ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY 


27 


Fig.  5. — Pure-bred  dairy  cattle  in  the  United  States,  1920.  Pure-bred  dairy 
cattle  are  widely  distributed  over  the  United  States,  the  greatest  number  being 
found  in  the  northeastern  and  Great  Lake  states.  In  number  per  state,  New 
York  was  first  in  1920,  Wisconsin  second,  California  twelfth,  Oregon  seventeenth 
and  Washington  eighteenth.  Figure  furnished  by  courtesy  of  the  U.  S.  Dept. 
Agr.     Data  from  1920  census. 


Fig.  6. — Percentages  of  pure-bied  bulls  in  the  United  States,  1920.  In  1920, 
Maine,  New  Hampshire,  Vermont,  Massachusetts  and  Arizona  had  more  than 
50  per  cent  of  their  dairy  bulls  pure-bred.  For  the  most  part  those  states  with 
the  largest  percentage  of  their  dairy  cattle  pure-bred  have  the  largest  percentage 
of  their  bulls  pure-bred,  and  also  have  the  largest  average  production  of  milk 
per  cow.  (Compare  with  fig.  7,  p.  39.)  Figure  by  courtesy  of  the  U.  S.  Dept. 
Agr.     Data  from  1920  census. 


28  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Information  with  reference  to  the  trend  in  the  number  of  pure- 
bred animals  within  the  state  is  very  meager.  Officials  of  the  Holstein- 
Friesian  Association  have  expressed  the  opinion  that  the  number 
of  pure-bred  Holsteins  in  each  state  is  closely  correlated  with  the 
membership  of  the  Holstein-Friesian  Association  in  that  state.  If 
this  be  true  California  contained  approximately  2.1  per  cent  of  the 
pure-bred  Holsteins  in  the  United  States  in  1926.  This  state  has 
experienced  a  more  rapid  growth  than  the  nation  as  a  whole,  the 
increase  in  membership  in  this  state  from  1915  to  1926  being  224.4 
per  cent  while  the  increase  in  the  entire  country  was  165.4  per  cent.6 
Registrations  of  Guernsey  cattle  within  the  state  since  1919  also  point 
to  an  upward  trend  more  rapid  than  that  of  Holsteins  during  the 
same  period.  Comparable  data  for  Jerseys  and  Ayrshires  could  not 
be  obtained. 

In  the  number  of  pure-bred  dairy  bulls  the  northwestern  and 
western  states  rank  high  (fig.  6).  The  effects  of  this  can  be  seen  in 
the  production  per  cow  in  the  various  sections  of  the  country.  Owing 
to  the  dairy  improvement  work  of  the  Agricultural  Extension  Service 
of  the  University  of  California  there  has  been  a  considerable  increase 
in  the  percentage  of  pure-bred  bulls  in  California. 

THE    GENERAL    DAIRY   SITUATION 

IMPORTANCE  OF  THE  DAIRY  INDUSTRY,  UNITED  STATES 

According  to  the  census  of  1920,  dairy  cattle  were  reported  on 
70.8  per  cent  of  the  farms  of  the  United  States.  Cows  were  milked 
on  78.3  per  cent  of  the  farms  in  1924.  In  addition  to  these,  there 
were  a  considerable  number  within  the  limits  of  towns  and  villages. 
In  1920  the  number  over  two  years  old  thus  enumerated  was  1,220,564 
or  6.2  per  cent  of  the  number  on  farms  (19,675,297).  Unfortunately, 
similar  data  from  the  1925  farm  census  are  not  yet  available. 

On  the  basis  of  aggregate  value,  in  1926  dairy  products  ranked 
first  among  farm  products  of  the  United  States,  exceeding  the 
value  of  corn,  cotton,  hay  and  forage,  and  total  vegetables  produced. 
The  crops  not  fed  to  livestock  had  an  estimated  farm  value  of 
$5,685,000,000,  while  animal  products  aggregated  $7,300,000,000 
(table  7).  Three  major  divisions  comprised  the  animal-products 
group:  (1)  dairy  products,  accounting  for  40.3  per  cent  of  the  animal 
products'  total;  (2)  animals  raised,  42.0;  (3)  poultry  products,  16.2. 


e  Straight-line  trends  fitted  to  the  entire  membership  of  the  Holstein-Friesian 
Association  from  1915-1926  gave  the  following  equation:  y  —  18827.3  +  1420.1a;, 
and  for  the  membership  in  California  the  equation  was  y  c=  387.3  -f  34.1  x. 


Bul.437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY    INDUSTRY 


29 


Wool,  together  with  minor  products,  made  up  the  remaining  1.5  per 
cent.  If  the  dairy  animals  slaughtered  were  included  under  the  first 
group  the  dairy  industry  would  make  up  an  even  larger  percentage 
of  the  gross  value  of  farm  production. 


TABLE  7 
Estimated  Gross  Value  of  Farm  Products,  United  States,  1919-1926 

(In  millions  of  dollars,  i.e.,  000,000  omitted) 


Crops 

Animal 
products 

Total 

crops  not 

fed  and 

animal 

products 

Dairy 
products 

Per  cent  dairy  products 
are  of 

Year 

Gross 

Not  fed 
to  live 
stock 

Total 
animal 
products 

Crops  not 
fed  and 
animal 

products 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

1919 

16,561 
11,578 
7,759 
9,430 
10,401 
10,770 
10,170 
9,266 

9,402 
7,102 
4,679 
5,560 
6,111 
6,317 
6,387 
5,685 

8,275 
7,709 
5,589 
5,651 
6,271 
5,902 
6,647 
7,300 

17,677 
14,811 
10,268 
11,211 
12,382 
12,219 
13,034 
12,985 

2,970 
2,885 
2,217 
2,097 
2,652 
2,586 
2,746 
2,952 

35.9 
37.4 
39.7 
37.1 
42.3 
43.8 
41  3 
40.3 

16  8 

1920 

19.5 

1921 

21  6 

1922.... 

18  7 

1923 

21  4 

1324.... 

21  2 

1925 

21.1 

1926 

22.7 

Sources  of  data: 

Cols.  1,  2,  3,  and  4,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Crops  and  Markets,  4:  p.  251.     1927. 

Col.  5,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Farm  production.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Yearbook,  1923: 
1143-1144.  1924.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Crops  and  Markets,  2:  p.  84.  1924;  ibid., 
3:  p.  226.     1926;  ibid.,  4:  p.  251.     1927. 

Cols.  6  and  7.  Computations  by  author;  col.  6  =  col.  5  divided  by  col.  3; 
col.  7  p=  col.  5  divided  by  col.  4. 

The  production  of  meat,  although  secondary  to  milk  production, 
is  nevertheless  an  important  factor  in  the  dairy  business.  The  United 
States  Department  of  Agriculture  has  estimated7  that  more  than 
23  per  cent  of  the  total  carcass  beef  in  1920  was  produced  from  dairy 
cattle  and  that  probably  80  per  cent  of  all  the  calves -slaughtered  were 
of  dairy  breeding. 

It  is  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  measure  the  material  contribu- 
tions which  dairy  cattle  make  to  soil  fertility.  This  factor  is  often 
lost  from  view. 

During  the  eight  years,  1919-1926  (inclusive)  there  has  been  a 
tendency  for  dairy  products  to  occupy  a  more  important  position 
among  all  farm  and  animal  products. 

7  Larson,  C.  W.  The  dairy  industrv.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Yearbook,  1922:  p.  338. 
1923. 


30 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  8 
Total  Farms  and  Cows  Milked  in  the  United  States,  1925 


Total 

farms  in 

state 

Farms  reporting  cows 
milked 

Cows  milked 

State 

Number 
2 

Percentage  of 

total  farms 

3 

Number 
4 

Per  farm 

reporting 

5 

237,564 

10,802 

221,995 

136,409 

58,025 

23,240 

10,257 

59,217 

249,101 

40,582 

225,597 

195,786 

213,481 

165,879 

258,511 

132,451 

50,033 

49,001 

33,454 

192,326 

188,227 

257,227 

260,484 

46,896 

127,727 

3,913 

21,065 

29,671 

31,687 

188,754 

283,492 

75,970 

244,703 

197,215 

55,911 

200,443 

3,911 

172,767 

79,535 

252,669 

466,395 

25,992 

27,786 

193,716 

73,267 

90,380 

193,155 

15,509 

139 

183,666 

6,438 

159,655 

65,630 

45,771 

18,439 

7,523 

23,382 

176,121 

31,931 

204,602 

173,502 

199,895 

146,705 

214,010 

73,574 

38,859 

36,587 

23,774 

162,998 

170,515 

164,311 

224,488 

34,381 

114,474 

2,515 

15,263 

19,338 

16,443 

154,961 

177,007 

67,305 

214,841 

162,915 

43,345 

165,727 

3,086 

107,607 

68,724 

208,155 

334,973 

20,854 

24,044 

156,493 

54,879 

80,126 

177,486 

11,427 

48 

77.31 
59.60 
71.92 
48.11 
78.88 
79.34 
73.35 
39.49 
70.70 
78.68 
90.69 
88.62 
93.64 
88.44 
82.79 
55.55 
77.67 
74.67 
71.06 
84.75 
90.59 
63.88 
86.18 
73.31 
89.62 
64.27 
72.46 
65.17 
51.89 
82.10 
72.44 
88.59 
87.80 
82.61 
77.52 
82.68 
78.91 
62.28 
86.41 
82.38 
71.82 
80.23 
86.53 
80.78 
74.90 
88.65 
91.89 
73.68 
34.53 

325,578 

33,317 

332,241 

540,295 

229,700 

109,834 

32,589 

62,940 

331,397 

151,722 

943,799 

656,898 

1,202,142 

694,454 

469,194 

164,896 

150,433 

173,170 

141,234 

823,118 

1,407,219 

358,044 

808,732 

167,967 

566,619 

18,768 

77,652 

117,099 

60,594 

1,347,975 

296,805 

446,695 

931,717 

526,681 

206,869 

873,015 

21,855 

163,233 

451,751 

447,597 

849,240 

82,898 

268,122 

375,594 

276,010 

219,342 

1,904,869 

57,849 

582 

1.8 

Arizona 

5.2 

Arkansas 

2.1 

California 

8.2 

Colorado 

5.0 

Connecticut 

6.0 

4.3 

2.7 

Georgia 

1.9 

Idaho 

4.8 

Illinois 

4.6 

Indiana 

3.8 

Iowa 

6.0 

Kansas 

4.7 

Kentucky 

2.2 

Louisiana 

2.2 

Maine 

3.9 

Maryland 

4.7 

Massachusetts 

5.9 

5.0 

8.3 

2.2 

3.6 

Montana 

4.9 

Nebraska 

4.9 

Nevada 

7.5 

New  Hampshire 

5  1 

New  Jersey 

6.1 

New  Mexico 

3.7 

New  York 

8.7 

North  Carolina 

1.7 

North  Dakota 

6.6 

Ohio 

4.3 

3.2 

Oregon 

4.8 

5.3 

7.1 

South  Carolina 

South  Dakota .*. 

1.5 
6.6 

2.2 

Texas 

2.5 

Utah 

4.0 

Vermont 

11.2 

2.4 

Washington 

5.0 

Wisconsin 

Wyoming 

2.7 
10.7 
5.1 

District  of  Columbia 

12.1 

Totals 

6,372,263 

4,988,493 

78.28 

19,272,110 

3.86 

Sources  of  data:  U.  S.  Dept.  Commerce,  Bur.  Census, 
culture:  1925.     County  tables.     1927. 


U.  S.  Census  of  Agri- 


BUL.  437]  ECONOMIC   ASPECTS  OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY  31 


THE    IMPORTANCE    OF    THE    DAIRY    INDUSTRY    IN    CALIFORNIA 

The  dairy  industry  in  this  state  is  more  specialized  than  in  the 
United  States  as  a  whole,  the  1925  farm  census  indicating  that  cows 
milked  in  California  in  1924  were  kept  on  only  48.1  per  cent  of  the 
farms,  while  the  corresponding  percentage  for  the  United  States  was 
78.3.  Returns  show  that  the  average  number  of  cows  milked  per  farm 
for  the  United  States  was  approximately  3 ;  for  California  the  number 
was  3.9.8 

Comparisons  between  the  value  of  dairy  products  and  other 
products  in  this  state  are  difficult  to  make.  The  California  State 
Department  of  Agriculture  reports  that  the  farm  value  of  the  milk 
fat  (butterfat)  sold  in  1926  was  $72,383,000  and  the  wholesale  value 
of  the  dairy  products  amounted  to  $130,130,782.9  (These  items  are 
not  inclusive  of  the  butter  and  cheese  made  in  small  amounts  on 
farms.)  If  to  these  items  were  added  the  value  of  animals  sold  for 
slaughter,  manure  produced,  etc.,  the  dairy  industry  would  appear 
to  be  among  the  most  important  in  the  state  from  the  standpoint  of 
the  aggregate  value  of  the  products  produced.  The  estimated  farm 
values  of  the  leading  crops  in  1926  were  :10 

1.  Oranges  $72,000,000 

2.  Hay    (tame  and  wild)  62,541,000 

3.  Grapes  (raisin,  table,  and  wine)  52,955,000 

4.  Peaches   . 19,890,000 

5.  Barley 18,792,000 

Data  for  the  farm  value  of  the  products  of  other  animal  industries 
have  not  been  compiled  for  recent  years  except  for  poultry  and  wool. 
The  value  of  poultry  products  in  1924  was  estimated  at  $44,423,606 
and  that  of  wool  at  $7,803,135.11 

Intensity  of  Dairying,  California. — Indications  point  to  a  slight 
tendency  toward  larger  and  relatively  fewer  herds  of  dairy  cattle 
in  California  if  statistics  from  1920  to  1925  are  compared.  In  1920 
approximately  54.1  per  cent  of  the  farms  of  the  state  reported  dairy 
cattle  while  in  1924  the  percentages  reporting  cows  milked  and  dairy 
cattle  were  48.1  and  43.3  respectively. 


s  Preliminary  computations  by  author  on  the  basis  of  the  1925  farm  census. 

9  Frey,  J.  J.  Statistical  report  of  California  dairy  products,  1926.  California 
State  Dept.  Agr.,  Special  Publication  71:  1-47.     1927. 

!0  Mimeographed  report,  California  Dept.  of  Agriculture,  issued  Jan.  5,  1927. 

n  U.  S.  Dept.  Commerce,  Bureau  Census.  United  States  Census  of  Agricul- 
ture:  1925,  California  (p.  7).     1926. 


32 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


<* 

t~-  o 

OO 

-* 

co 

CO 

CO 

in 

^ 

Tt< 

CO 

o 

"0 

CO 

TH 

CO 

Ol 

CO 

00 

00 

00    ■*    Ol 

CM     OO    C 

9 

co 

»* 

o» 

~ 

1-H      CO 

1- 

CO 

-f 

o 

OS 

CM 

M    lO    M 

00    CO    CO 

t~ 

Ol 

CO 

o 

ee 

■^1  °. 

°! 

t- 

tr. 

CO 

OS 

a 

CM     CO     -H 

n  a  h 

oi 

CM 

ol 

CO 

r- 

CM    co' 

c 

t-" 

3' 

m" 

«5* 

CM 

-f     CO 

IN    ^    ■* 

Ol 

o 

CM 

■^ 

O    OS 

OS 

oo 

-CH 

CM 

O 

O0    CM 

t-    CM    ■<*< 

co 

CM     f- 

a 

CO 

OS 

t~-                1H 

CM 

^H     OS 

OS 

t^ 

CO 

CO 

os 

6 
a 

3 
►7 

<M 

w» 

co    a 

J£ 

£ 

a 

a 

_2 

en 

CO      CO      CO 

en 

en 

CO 

CO 

co 

a 

CO 

CM 

CTs 

£ 

g3  5  £ 

£  £  x 

£ 

£ 

£ 

£ 

£ 

£ 

ci     cj     ci     cc;     cz     'C3     c 
biO    cX    bC    M     bJD    M    fcil 

£ 

CO 

co   o   co 

t^    ©    OS 

OS 

i 

Ob 

oo 

o 

to 

OS   o 

o 

t^ 

CO 

tO 

00 

>> 

CO    <N    OO 

CO    CO    o 

CI 

o 

CO 

CO 

>0    CM 

CO 

oo 

CO 

o 

t--    •*<     OS 

CM    00    CM 

l> 

o 

o 

■o 

°i 

lO 

C5    00 

Ol 

Ol 

3 

O 

*    11)    M 

O    CO    o 

00 

CO 

tr. 

co" 

c 

^H      CO 

o~ 

to 

til 

o 

'O 

co 

•-a 

t-   co   ^h 

IN     Ol    0O 

to 

Ol 

CO 

b- 

oc 

co   co 

CO 

-CH 

o 

H< 

o 

to    CO 

OO    -<*l    ■«* 

e 

IQ 

«* 

CO 

o   a- 

to 

Ol 

■* 

00    CM 

lO     CM    00 

oo' 

CO 

»c    CO 

r^ 

lO 

l> 

OO 

i-- 

o 

EO 

00    O    CO 

Tj< 

o 

Cb 

c- 

Ol 

Ol 

CM 

OS 

CO     1^ 

e 

oc 

o 

CO 

co 

o 

CO 

i^ 

oo  oo  w 

OS 

CO 

OO 

CO 

C 

00 

CO 

»o    00 

OS 

a 

•o 

O 

CT 

oo 

H    N    (O 

CM 

1* 

5 

1^ 

t^ 

OS    oo 

CO 

oo 

CO 

c 

oo 

t- 

t^ 

CO 

—(    r-    o 

CO 

s 

CO 

CO 

t^ 

CO 

00 

oo    t^ 

~ 

in- 

o 

eo 

OO    O    00 

00 

o 

c 

o 

H< 

t^ 

tn   <m 

Ol 

CO 

to 

00 

r-    lO 

«5 

Ol 

N 

CO 

o 

"* 

»o 

CM    «5 

Ol 

to 

^ 

"* 

lO 

co 

O 

»o    OS 

to 

CO 

CM 

CO 

M 

"H 

•f 

CM 

O 

•» 

0) 

co     a 

0 

J 

J£ 

jn 

CO 

oo     co     a 

to    co    a 

CO 

tr 

CO 

cr 

CO* 

J 

jQ  jO  £ 

£    £    £ 

£ 

£ 

£ 

£ 

£ 

£ 

cSdncuncjOic! 
MbfibOMMbjOMWI 

£ 

a 

r^ 

co   co   •«*< 

M    »    M 

CO 

IO 

3 

OS 

oc 

oo    to 

as 

Ol 

Ol 

to 

o 

CO 

3 

CO 

rt      CO      <-H 

O    O    CO 

lO 

CO 

H    CM 

CO 

r- 

to 

Ol 

co 

»-s 

CO 

CO    OO    i-c 

M     N     CO 

to 

co 

oo 

CO 

CO 

lO    »o 

OS 

oo 

CO 

o 

Ol 

cc 

o 

oa 

OO     rt     CO 

HON 

O 

o 

«o 

o 

lO    >o 

»o 

o- 

to 

oc 

eo 

OS 

O    US    o 

O0    "*    — 1 

lO 

CO 

o 

■d 

t^ 

O    CO 

»o 

■<* 

o 

"* 

o 

cr 

Tf< 

IT 

t*   o   -* 

ffl    !D    N 

CO 

°l 

^ 

OS 

LO 

t~   1^ 

H 

o 

o 

oc 

CO 

CO 

t>r  o 

lO    CO     CN 

co 

CM 

o 

to* 

CM 

to 

CM    OS    t*< 

t>. 

CO 

co 

oc 

CO 

GO 

^h  r^ 

o 

CO    CM 

CO 

CO 

to 

co 

CO 

a 

CN 

CO 

O    CO    O 

©  t^  o 

OS 

oo 

Ol 

- 

Ol 

CO    iH 

>o 

■^1     OS 

CO 

CO 

Ol 

l> 

oo 

<= 

OO 

CO 

o 

oo 

CI 

*r> 

— 

O    CO 

os 

»o    CO 

Ol 

CO 

CO 

to 

to 

CO 

CO      0O      1-H 

CO 

t^ 

t^ 

Oi 

lO    i-i 

CM 

00    o 

CO 

OS 

to 

tt 

o 

es 

CO    CM    CM 

•o 

s 

to 

z- 

o 

o 

O 

•**   -1 

Ol 

CO 

o 

CO 

CO 

r^ 

00    CO 

CO 

t- 

rt    00 

1^ 

CO 

co 

to 

CO 

CY 

o 

OO     FH 

•o 

o 

CM 

OS 

Q 

co 

M< 

«• 

0> 

co     co     a 

co    co     a 

CO 

or 

CO 

V 

co     v 

a 

^co    a 

jr 

A  £  ^2  ^ 

co 

J 

5   £   £ 

=S   £   G. 

£ 

X 

£ 

£ 

£   £ 

X 

c3c3c3C3C3C3C3C" 
bJDbCbCMMbChCb 

0 

£ 

d' 

c 

■*    CO    CO 

oo  co  eo 

O)    CO    CO 

oo 

a 

1^ 

■^1     CD 

-CO 

UO 

01 

OS 

•«J< 

c3 

oc 

OS     N     CO 

5 

CO 

o 

co   co 

CO 

IO      T*H 

6S 

r^ 

SO 

-J 

or 

00 

*-» 

00 

o  o  o 

i-l    00    CO 

CI 

5 

« 

CO    Hi 

o 

kO_   CO 

to 

~ 

CO 

CN 

CO 

_ 

t^ 

Ol   wo 

OO    CO    00 

CI 

IC 

lO 

~ 

•o"  -«t 

tf. 

cm  «: 

CM 

oc 

Ol 

OC 

U0 

^H      t~-      Ui 

HI    M    M 

■<! 

c 

c- 

CO    IC 

>c 

CO    c 
co   o- 

CT- 

CO 

CO 

-jz 

CO 

CO 

oo 

»-(      O      — 1 

TJJ_     ©      "* 

^ 

G 

o 

oo   t^ 

CO 

c 

to 

CO 

c 

o 

-« 

O0    ^H 

aT  ■*$*  co 

C 

■*     CO 

iO 

00*    IC 

o 

o 

OS 

l> 

S  "" 

o 

CM 

"a? 

CO 

0) 

JS 

o 

1 

a 

- 

a 
a 

3 

co 

M 

e. 

3 

£ 
a 

■n 

-r 

d 

p 

cj 

c 

01 

sr 
1 

> 

(- 

«. 

> 

o 

o 

C 
C 

L, 

t: 

g 

j 

"3 

1 

"3 

1 

a 
c 

4, 

1 

£ 

T 

a 
C 
•x 

i 

CO      *■ 

SI 
"     1 

!■ 

E 

0 

B 

c 
c 

C 

a 
E 

£ 

1 

£ 

1 

t 

X 

CD 
CO 
Ol 
ft 
>> 

"3     4 

3  a 

8  i 

cp   £ 

f 

c 

£ 
1,5 

c 

! 

< 

e 

c 

1 

£ 

a 

T 
t 

t 

j- 
c 

c 

T 

a 

\ 

i 

T 
C 
c 

I 

-    a 
a 

IE 

8 

T 

a 

D 

C 

a 

— 
c 

c 

s 

T 
a 

c 
a 
0 

a 

c 

i 

1 

T 
a 
E 
a 

X 
9 

& 

a 

t- 

~ 
c 
a 
a 

~ 

g 
E 
s 

ij 

,  El  e 

0   -^ 
51 

'a 

£ 

T 
c 

T3     C 

el    n 

c3   * 

*^  * 

"S    a 

E 

c 

1 

1 

£ 
| 

"i 

£ 

CT 

— 

3 

'c 

s 

s 

i 

c 

0 

"cc 
> 

- 

c 

£ 

ja    o    : 

>     >     S 

DC 

c3     cc 

a 

a 

5 

; 

5 

X 

PC 

O  C 

i* 

C^ 

t 

ric 

§ 

< 

c 

P 

5 

< 

^ 

PC 

c 

c 

E- 

-S  5  i2 


o    o    o 


•3-3 


.2  i2  2  -2 
c   d   c   d 


0)      CJ      CD      <U 


a  d.  ft  a 


t)     t)     V     « 

>   >    >   > 


'i  CO       CO  CO  CO 

«*-  TJ   TJ  -0  T3 

0  G  G  G  G 
cp  G  3  G  3 
3  O     O  O  O 

-^  ft    ft  ft  ft 

>  o  o  o  o 

G  S  I  I  § 

u  o*  o"  o"  o" 

C3  o   o  o  o 

(£]  q  q  q  oi_ 

1  to   o  to*  oo" 

I  i-H    CM  CM  CO 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY    INDUSTRY 


33 


TABLE  10 
Numbers  and  Percentages  of  Farms  with  Milk  Cows,  California,  1925 


Section  and  county 


North  coast 

Del  Norte 

Humboldt 

Trinity 

Mendocino 

Lake 

Sonoma 

Napa 

Marin 

South  coast 

San  Francisco 

Alameda 

San  Mateo 

Contra  Costa 

Santa  Clara 

Santa  Cruz 

San  Benito 

Monterey 

San  Luis  Obispo 
Sacramento  Valley  . 

Shasta 

Tehama 

Glenn 

Butte 

Yuba 

Colusa 

Sutter 

Nevada 

Placer 

Sacramento 

Yolo 

Solano 

El  Dorado 

Amador 

San  Joaquin  Valley 

San  Joaquin 

Calaveras 

Stanislaus 

Tuolumne 

Merced 

Mariposa 

Madera 

Fresno 

Tulare 

Kings 

Kern 


Farms 


Total 
number 


219 
153 
258 

223 
809 

978 
350 
887 

761 

250 

17 

149 

981 

938 
959 
232 
997 

922 
055 
924 
195 

785 
544 
465 
704 
,139 
,694 
40S 
,44* 
,921 
,852 
,524 
883 
362 
,457 
,640 
022 
,177 
57S 
,722 
270 
,721 
,463 
,106 
,359 
,793 


Report- 
ing 
cows 
milked 


9,033 
146 

1,898 
129 

1,269 
530 

3,542 
924 
595 

8,751 


1,515 

400 

871 

2,088 

1,029 

478 

959 

1,411 

11,090 

707 

1,035 

1,046 

1,170 

455 

541 

775 

313 

684 

1,774 

1,125 

777 

544 

144 

22,633 

2,873 

414 

3,455 

278 

2,306 

168 

899 

4,959 

4,091 

1,626 

1,564 


Report- 
ing 
dairy 


8,339 
142 

1,677 
88 

1,156 
478 

3,331 
883 
584 

8,000 


1,363 

387 

832 

2,025 

1,007 

361 

825 

1,200 

8,967 

477 

828 

921 

978 

286 

444 

603 

262 

631 

1,527 

1,019 

564 

393 

34 

21,114 

2,593 

127 

3,371 

271 

2,228 

13 

734 

4,720 

3,940 

1,592 

1,525 


Total 
number 

cows 
milked 


95,825 
4,544 

25,310 

400 

7,656 

1,871 

26,481 
4,193 

25,370 

78,565 


10,180 

8,201 

6,295 

12,059 

3,332 

2,723 

16,852 

18,923 

60,664 

3,140 

3,812 

6,969 

7,719 

2,487 

3,162 

3,991 

1,438 

2,173 

8,530 

7,994 

5,786 

2,221 

1,242 

181,348 

24,033 

1,144 

35,347 

993 

32,022 

320 

5,920 

23,064 

30,013 

19,527 

8,965 


Cows 
nnlked 
per 
farm 
report- 
ing 


10.6 
31.1 

13.3 
3.1 

5.9 
3.5 
7.5 
4.5 
42.6 
9.0 


6.7 
20.5 
7.2 
5.8 
3.2 
5.7 
17.6 
13.4 
5.5 
4.4 
3.7 
6.7 
6.6 
5.5 
5.8 
5.2 
4.6 
3.2 
4.8 
7.1 
7.5 
4  1 
8.6 
8  0 
8.4 
2.8 
10.2 
3.6 
13.9 
1.9 
6  6 
4.7 
7.3 
12  0 
5.7 


Percentage  of— 


Farms 

on  which 

cows 

were 

milked 

7 


63.5 
95.4 
84.1 
57.8 
70.1 
54.2 
55.8 
54.8 
78.2 
43.2 


48.1 
40.8 
44.9 
30.0 
46.1 
47.9 
49.9 
68.7 
53.0 
59.2 
58.0 
67.7 
47.5 
64.6 
47.5 
45.8 
76.7 
47.2 
45.2 
60.7 
51.0 
61.6 
39.8 
55.9 
50.9 
66.6 
66.7 
48  1 
62.0 
60.9 
52.2 
47.4 

55  6 
68.9 

56  0 


Farms 
report- 
ing 
dairy 
cows 


58.7 
92.8 


43.3 
39.5 
42.9 
29.1 
45.1 
36.2 
42.9 
58.4 
42.9 
39.9 
46.4 
59.7 
39.7 
40.6 
39.0 
35.6 
64.2 
43.6 
38.9 
55.0 
37.1 
44.5 
9.4 
2 
0 
4 


52 


20. 
65.9 
46.9 
59.9 
4.7 
42.7 
45.1 
55  5 
67.5 
54.6 


Farms 
report- 
ing dairy 
bulls  or 
calves 


23.3 
81.7 
39.3 
20.2 
27.1 
17.7 
15.5 
11.8 
54.3 
12.6 


9.7 
20.2 
11.0 

5.5 

9.0 
12.3 
19.4 
37.1 
16.9 
22.9 
20.4 
36.3 
14.7 
19.2. 
16.8 
14.2 
34.3 
11.4 

6.1 
23.8 
14.1 
20.1 

5.5 
22  8 
18.8 

7.2 
34.7 
18.7 
38.2 

2.5 
20.3 
12.9 
21.6 
37.8 
23.8 


34 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  10—  (Continued) 


Farms 

Total 
number 

cows 
milked 

5 

Cows 
milked 
per 
farm 
report- 
ing 

6 

Percentage  of— 

Section  and  county 

Total 
number 

2 

Report- 
ing 
cows 
milked 

3 

Report- 
ing 
dairy 
cows 

4 

Farms 

on  which 

cows 

were 

milked 

7 

Farms 
report- 
dairy 
cows 
8 

Farms 
report- 
ing dairy 
bulls  or 
calves 
9 

37,671 
1,363 

1,647 

12,380 

5,697 

4,466 

4,960 

3,967 

3,191 

2,892 

952 

670 

425 

181 

68 

23 

91 

482 

12,022 

887 

923 

2,698 

1,263 

1,059 

1,892 

1,644 

1,656 

2,101 

638 

531 

336 

142 

60 

13 

44 

337 

11,371 

816 

880 

2,588 

1,216 

989 

1,764 

1,524 

1,594 

1,327 

343 

266 

247 

112 

49 

7 

35 

268 

104,353 

7,103 

2,904 

36,024 

9,867 

6,087 

8,131 

8,982 

25,255 

19,540 

7,148 

3,596 

2,829 

2,270 

1,325 

218 

272 

1,882 

8.7 

8.0 

3.2 

13  4 

7.8 

5.8 

4.3 

5.5 

15.3 

9.3 

11.2 

6.8 

8.4 

16.0 

22.1 

16.8 

6.2 

5.6 

31.9 
65.1 
56.0 
21.8 
22.2 
23.7 
38.1 
41.4 
51.9 
72.6 
67.0 
79.3 
79.1 
78.5 
88.2 
56.5 
48.4 
69.9 

30.2 
59.9 
53.4 
20.9 
21.3 
22.2 
35.6 
38.4 
50.0 
45.9 
36.0 
39.7 
58.1 
61.9 
72.1 
30.4 
38.5 
55.6 

10  1 

18.4 

9.8 

7.2 

6.9 

5  4 

10  3 

11  6 

28.3 

32.9 

25.8 

30.0 

39.8 

55.3 

55.9 

30.4 

18.7 

36.1 

State  totals  and  averages.. 

136,413 

65,630 

59,118 

540,295 

8.2 

48.1 

43.3 

17.2 

Source  of  data: 

Cols.  2,  3,  4,  and  5,  U.  S.  Dept.  Commerce.  U.  S.  Census  of  Agriculture:  1925, 
California,  county  tables,  8-13,  1927. 

Cols.  6,  7,  8,  9:  computations  by  author;  col.  6  =  col.  5  divided  by  col.  3; 
col.  7  —  col.  3  divided  by  col.  2 ;  col.  8  =  col.  4  divided  by  col.  2 ;  col.  9  =  number 
of  farms  reporting  bulls  or  dairy  calves  divided  by  col.  2. 

A  larger  percentage  of  the  farmers  in  the  mountain  counties 
milked  cows  than  in  any  other  section  of  the  state  according  to  the 
1925  farm  census.  The  north  coast,  San  Joaquin  Valley,  Sacramento 
Valley,  south  coast,  and  southern  California  counties  followed  in 
order  (table  10).  Since  the  mountain  counties  reported  a  large 
number  of  beef  cattle  milked,  the  percentage  of  farms  reporting  dairy 
cattle  is  also  enumerated  in  table  10.  A  rough  approximation  to  the 
amount  of  dairy  blood  in  the  cows  milked  might  be  obtained  by  com- 
paring the  percentages  of  dairy  cows  and  cows  milked.  It  is  evident 
that  in  the  southern  section  of  the  state  the  percentages  of  farms 
reporting  dairy  cows  and  cows  milked  differs  but  little.  On  the  other 
hand,  there  is  a  wide  difference  between  these  percentages  in  the 
mountain  counties.  The  number  of  farms  reporting  dairy  cows  in 
the  Sacramento  Valley  is  low  compared  with  the  number  on  which 
cows  were  milked. 


BUL.  437]  ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF   THE  DAIRY   INDUSTRY  35 

In  order  to  give  an  approximation  to  the  percentage  of  farms 
which  operated  as  commercial  dairy  farms  the  percentages  of  those 
reporting  dairy  bulls  or  calves  is  given  in  table  10.  Approximately 
25  per  cent  of  the  farms  of  the  state  reported  dairy  cows  but  neither 
dairy  bulls  or  calves.  It  is  highly  probable  that  in  this  category 
would  be  included  many  of  those  who  were  not  largely  dependent  on 
the  dairy  business.  Only  17.2  per  cent  of  the  farms  in  the  state 
reported  either  dairy  bulls  or  calves. 

The  north  coast  and  the  mountain  counties  contained  the  largest 
number  of  cows  milked  per  farm,  both  when  the  total  number  of 
farms  was  considered  and  when  only  those  on  which  cows  were  milked 
were  taken  into  account.  The  Sacramento  Valley  was  far  below  the 
average  of  the  state  in  both  connections. 

DAIRY-FEED   CONDITIONS   IN  CALIFORNIA 

Coast  Counties. — Dairying  is  carried  on  in  almost  all  parts  of 
California,  under  widely  different  conditions.  Production  in  the 
coast  counties  is  influenced  more  by  climatic  conditions,  especially 
rainfall,  than  in  most  other  sections  of  the  state.  Seasonal  variation 
in  production  is  pronounced.  Indices  of  seasonal  variation  calculated 
from  receipts  at  a  number  of  plants  in  Humboldt  County  indicate 
that  on  the  basis  of  100  as  a.  normal  the  production  for  the  various 
months  is  as  follows  :12 

January   36.60  July    144.28 

February 24.52  August   125.36 

March  69.38  September    106.85 

April  138.83  October 97.48 

May    166.90  November    76.15 

June   155.58  December  58.07 

South  of  the  Humboldt  area  the  months  of  low  production  usually 
occur  in  the  fall,  September  to  November,  varying  with  the  season. 
The  peak  months,  on  the  other  hand,  usually  fall  during  March  to 
May.  In  the  Humboldt-Del  Norte  area  the  use  of  pasture  crops, 
usually  clover  and  rye  grass,  is  an  outstanding  practice.  To  supple- 
ment the  pasture,  use  is  made  of  soiling  crops  and  roots.  Considerable 
use  is  made  of  concentrates. 

In  the  Marin-Sonoma  area  pasture  is  commonly  utilized  during  the 
months  of  April,  May,  June,  and  July.  During  the  remainder  of 
the  year  cows  are  fed  hay  and  concentrates  witli  some  succulent  feeds 
such  as  silage,  carrots,  potatoes,  and  pumpkins.  Oat  hay  is  the  prin- 
cipal roughage,  although  some  alfalfa  is  imported  from  other  sections. 

12  Calculations  based  upon  Persons '  method  of  link  relatives. 


36  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Many  of  the  dairies  in  the  Monterey-San  Benito-Santa  Cruz  area 
operate  with  irrigated  alfalfa  and  other  field  crops.  Pasture,  either 
natural  or  alfalfa  or  grain  stubble,  is  common  practice.  Alfalfa  hay 
is  usually  fed  either  alone  or  as  a  supplement  to  the  pasture.  Various 
succulent  feeds  such  as  silage,  sugar-beet  tops,  green  alfalfa,  green 
barley,  green  grass,  potatoes,  sugar  beets  roots,  and  carrots  are  often 
utilized. 

Dairying  is  a  major  and  important  enterprise  in  the  San  Luis 
Obispo  section,  being  conducted  on  the  rolling  hills  and  small  valleys 
with  much  of  the  land  in  pasture.  Pasture  is  more  or  less  available 
the  year  round;  the  best  of  it  is  available  from  April  to  October. 
Oat  hay  is  the  common  roughage,  and  with  roots,  squashes,  and  con- 
centrates, it  is  utilized  during  the  remainder  of  the  year,  in  amounts 
depending  on  the  carrying  capacity  of  the  pasture.13 

Sacramento  and  Sa?i  Joaquin  Valleys. — In  the  interior  valley  from 
Red  Bluff  to  Bakersfield  and  from  the  Sierra  Nevada  Mountains  to 
the  Coast  Range,  intensive  dairying  is  practiced.  Land  values  are 
high  in  a  large  part  of  this  area,  and  the  dairyman  must  purchase  or 
rent  land  on  the  basis  of  the  returns  from  fruit  growing,  truck  gar- 
dening, and  other  intensive  farming  enterprises.  In  this  basin  with 
its  long,  warm  summers,  seasonable  variation  is  not  great.  The  main 
feedstuff  used  for  dairy  cattle  in  this  section  is  alfalfa,  and  the  expan- 
sion of  the  industry  is  dependent  to  a  large  degree  upon  the  alfalfa 
acreage.  There  is  a  high  degree  of  correlation14  between  the  actual 
number  of  dairy  cattle  over  two  years  old  and  the  alfalfa  acreage 
(using  1925  data  in  both  instances). 

Mountain  Counties. — In  the  northern  interior  counties  of  Shasta 
and  Siskiyou,  and  in  counties  along  the  eastern  boundary  of  the  state 
will  be  found  numerous  valleys  varying  in  size  from  a  few  thousand 
acres  to  many  square  miles,  where  irrigation  is  possible  and  in  many 
instances  already  practiced.  Although  mountain  range  is  convenient 
and  cheap,  alfalfa  is  grown  to  a  considerable  extent  in  certain  of  the 
valleys.  Both  pasture  and  alfalfa  hay  are  utilized.  This  area  has 
been  extending  its  dairy  operations  during  the  past  few  years. 

Southern  California. — In  that  part  of  the  state  south  of  Kern  and 
San  Luis  Obispo  counties,  the  two  principal  dairy  sections  are  in 
I jos  Angeles  and  Imperial  counties.  Dairying  for  the  purpose  of 
supplying  market  milk  is  carried  on  in  other  sections  of  the  southern 
portion  of  the  state.     The  basic  feed  is  alfalfa,  although  outside  of 

13  Adams,  R.  L.  The  cost  of  producing  market  milk  and  butterfat  on  246 
California  dairies.     California  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  372:  1-164,  figs.  1-9.     1923. 

14  Coefficient  of  correlation  r=  +  0.964. 


BUL.  437]  ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY  37 

Imperial  Valley  much  of  it  has  to  be  imported.  Imperial  Valley  with 
its  water  supply  and  warm,  long  growing  season  can  produce  a  large 
amount  of  feed  per  acre.  Seasonal  variation  in  production  is  not 
large.  Dairying,  however,  must  meet  competition  with  cantaloupe, 
cotton,  lettuce,  and  early-vegetable  crops. 

AVEKAGE  PRODUCTION  PEE  COW  IN  CALIFORNIA 

California  ranks  high  in  the  average  production  of  milk  and 
butterfat  per  cow.  In  1919  the  estimated  production  of  milk  per  cow 
in  the  United  States  was  366  gallons  (2947.6  pounds).15  During  the 
same  year  the  production  reported  per  cow  in  California  was  536 
gallons16  (4609.6  pounds).  This  latter  production  was  exceeded  by 
only  two  states — Washington  with  571  gallons  (4910.6  pounds)  and 
Rhode  Island  with  550  gallons  (4830  pounds)  (fig.  7).  The  figures 
quoted  included  only  milk  reported  from  farms,  estimates  being 
omitted.  It  is  estimated  that  the  average  milk  production  per  cow 
milked  in  the  United  States  during  1924  was  440  gallons  (3784 
pounds),  while  for  California  it  was  630  gallons  (5418  pounds).17 
The  same  general  conclusions  with  reference  to  California 's  high  aver- 
age milk  production  will  be  reached  if  instead  of  computing  the  milk 
production  per  cow  milked  the  average  production  of  milk  cows  on 
farms  is  computed18  (table  13).  California's  record  is  exceeded  only 
by  that  of  New  Jersey  with  651  gallons  (5599  pounds).19  While  the 
statistics  for  1924  are  not  strictly  comparable  with  those  for  1919, 
indications  are  that  there  has  been  a  decided  increase  in  the  production 
of  milk  per  cow.  In  making  comparisons  between  states  the  fact  that 
different  breeds  are  more  largely  represented  in  certain  states,  thus 
making  for  a  decided  difference  in  milk  flow,  should  not  be  overlooked. 
Several  states  report  comparatively  large  numbers  of  cows  of  the  beef 
breeds  milked,  the  result  being  that  the  production  of  milk  per  cow 
in  those  states  is  low.  California,  on  the  other  hand,  is  highly  special- 
ized in  its  dairying  operations,  only  20,685  cows  of  beef  breeds  being 
milked  out  of  a  total  of  540,295  cows  used  for  milk  purposes.20 

is  U.  S.  Dept.  Commerce,  Fourteenth  census  of  the  U.  S.,  1920,  5:  p.  654. 

is  Ibid.,  p.  657. 

17  U.  S.  Dept.  of  Commerce,  Bureau  Census.  U.  S.  Census  of  Agriculture, 
1925,  California,  p.  26.     1926. 

is  The  1925  Farm  Census  reported  the  number  of  cows  actually  milked.  The 
Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  has  made  an  estimate  of  the  number  of  cows  kept  for  milk 
purposes   (table  3,  p.  14). 

19  U.  S.  Dept.  of  Commerce,  Bureau  Census.  U.  S.  Census  of  Agriculture, 
1925,  New  Jersey,  p.  15.     1926. 

20  U.  S.  Dept.  Commerce,  Bureau  Census.  U.  S.  Census  of  Agriculture,  1925, 
California,  p.  26.     1926. 


38 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  11 

Estimated  Average  Butterfat  Production  of  Milk  Cows,   Two  Years  Old 

and  Over,  in  California,  1920-1926 


Year 
1 

Milk  cows, 

number 

2 

Total  butterfat 

production, 

pounds 

3 

Average  butterfat 

production  per 

milk  cow 

4 

1920 * 

522,500 
540,000 
565,000 
587,500 
587,000 
587,500 
596,000 

95,598,555 
102,554,689 
112,751,390 
122,665,521 
125,458,622 
125,043,036 
129,085,384 

183  0 

1921 

189  9 

1922 

199  6 

1923 

208  8 

1924 

213.7 

1925 

212  8 

1926 

216.6 

Sources  of  data: 

Col.  2,  1920-1926;  number  of  milk  cows  for  each  year  in  California  based 
upon  averages  of  estimates  for  January  1  of  each  year,  e.g. :  1920  =  average  of 
number  of  milk  cows  on  January  1,  1920  and  January  1,  1921.  Original  data  in 
the  following:  Kaufman,  E.  E.  California  crop  report,  1926.  California  State 
Dept.  Agr.,  Special  Pub.  74:  p.  45.     1927. 

Col.  3,  1920-1924,  butterfat  production  is  the  average  of  production  of  two 
succeeding  fiscal  years,  e.g.,  1920  ==  average  of  production  for  1919-1920  and 
1920-1921.  1925-1926  data  obtained  for  calendar  years.  Original  data  in  col.  3 
from  J.  J.  Frey.  Statistical  report  of  California  dairy  products,  1926.  California 
State  Dept.  Agr.,  Special  Pub.  71:  p.  18.     1927.     Col.  4  =  col.  3  divided  by  col.  2. 


TABLE  12 
Partial  Sales  of  Pure-Bred  Dairy  Cows  and  Heifers,  California,  1921-1923 


Record  of  dam 

Open  heifers 

Bred  heifers 

Total 

Pounds  of  butterfat  in 
seven  days 

Number 

Average 
price 

Number 

Average 
price 

Number 

Average 
price 

Over  30 

24 
39 
59 
115 

$533.33 
340.96 
215.30 
215.02 

19 
41 
57 

62 

$687.89 
411.58 
348.07 
332.82 

43 
80 
116 
177 

$601.63 

25.0-29.99 

377.16 

20  0-24.99 

278.08 

Under  20.0 

256.29 

237 
307 

268.05 
$151  02 

179 
159 

391.81 
$221.54 

416 
466 

321.30 

$175.08 

Seven-day  butterfat  record 
of  animal  sold 

Cows  2,  3,  and  4  years 

Cows  5,  6,  7,  and  8  years 

Over  30  .  ... 

8 
28 
71 
153 

$850.00 
706.79 
583.73 
398.82 

36 

67 
89 
74 

$916.95 
669.32 
416.35 
304.12 

44 

95 
160 

227 

$904.77 

25.0-29.99...  . 

680.37 

20  0-24.99 

490.63 

Under  20  0 

367.95 

260 
369 

496.37 

$309.69 

266 
146 

516.60 

$288.70 

526 
515 

506.60 

$303.74 

Source   of   data :    Computations   by   author   on   basis   of   records   compiled   by 
Arthur  Folger,  Division  of  Animal  Husbandry,  University  of  California. 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF   THE  DAIRY   INDUSTRY 


39 


40 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  13 

Milk  Produced  on  Farms  by  Divisions  and  States  and  Average  Milk 

Production  per  Cow 

(Million  gallons,  i.e.,  000,000  omitted) 


Milk  produced  in  millions  of  gallons 

Average  production  per  cow  in 
gallons 

1889 

1899 

1909 

1919 

1924 

1909 

1919 

1924-a 

1924-b 

5,210 

339 

1,097 

1,423 

1,296 

333 

332 

187 

46 

156 

'  7,266 

490 

1,338 

1,928 

1,682 

492 

500 

474 

110 

252 

7,466 

401 

1,273 

1,980 

1,731 

518 

469 

522 

174 

392 

7,805 

386 

1,248 

2,247 

1,718 

518 

459 

459 

260 

510 

9,198 

403 

1,264 

2,615 

2,275 

1,048 

490 

589 

362 

622 

362 
476 
490 
410 
325 
286 
288 
232 
339 
475 

366 
449 
490 
423 
312 
291 
255 
208 
362 
536 

411 

487 
523 
474 
374 
324 
291 
274 
440 
572 

440 

524 

541 

East  North  Central 

497 

West  North  Central 

408 

South  Atlantic 

343 
312 

West  South  Central 

314 

452 

608 

58 
43 
91 
83 
11 
54 

100 
61 
142 
106 
13 
69 

70 
44 
123 
90 
12 
60 

78 
43 
122 
76 
12 
55 

71 
38 
128 
87 
14 
66 

445 
439 
463 
526 
522 
487 

433 
429 
414 
506 
550 
480 

450 
447 
438 
568 
614 
562 

473 

492 

477 

613 

618 

598 

New  York 

664 

64 

369 

773 

78 

487 

783 

81 

412 

756 

70 

422 

742 

76 

446 

519 
522 
441 

502 
532 
464 

529 
617 
500 

550 

651 

511 

Ohio 

327 
201 
367 
225 
304 

426 
263 
457 
310 

472 

362 
217 
396 
353 
667 

396 
239 
370 
383 
858 

426 
271 
435 
424 
1,059 

400 
342 
377 
460 
453 

419 
354 
354 
461 

467 

442 
405 
419 
500 
530 

457 

412 

461 

515 

556 

183 
487 
194 
27 
60 
145 
202 

304 
536 
258 
49 
99 
190 
245 

409 
490 
221 
101 
117 
198 
218 

476 
361 
229 
139 
124 
168 
221 

664 
516 
274 
199 
173 
198 
252 

377 
348 
258 
388 
317 
323 
296 

354 
315 

272 
309 
272 
294 
309 

429 
394 
334 
393 
325 
320 
337 

472 

429 

339 

446 

383 

Nebraska 

349 

363 

11 
47 
0  5 
78 
59 
55 
24 
53 
5 

13 
64 
0  75 
105 
84 
90 
44 
82 
10 

11 

60 

0  5 

104 

76 

97 

50 

100 

13 

11 
59 
0.5 
111 
74 
96 
53 
102 
12 

13 

74 

0  5 

127 

77 

108 

50 

99 

19 

307 
358 
713 
293 
316 
314 
278 
247 
108 

340 
353 
723 
292 
347 
310 
273 
247 
152 

383 
408 

400 

428 

826 

335 
326 
350 
279 
274 
254 

339 

349 

364 

306 

Georgia 

298 

306 

118 
108 
56 
51 

159 
147 
96 
97 

141 

129 
98 
96 

147 
130 

94 
88 

166 
149 
95 
90 

344 
326 
250 
224 

310 
290 
226 
185 

357 
323 
260 
212 

354 

332 

293 

250 

Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY    INDUSTRY 


41 


TABLE  13—  (Continued) 

(Million  gallons,  i.e.,  000,000  omitted) 


Milk  produced  in  millions  of  gallons 

Average  production  per  cow  in 
gallons 

1889 

1899 

1909 

1919 

1924 

1909 

1919 

1924-a 

1924-b 

54 

13 

1.5 

118 

110 
39 
74 

251 

98 

48 

134 

240 

88 

33 

136 

203 

99 

38 

178 

275 

230 
173 
253 
237 

190 
154 
234 
214 

260 
184 
313 
275 

297 

230 

337 

Texas 

323 

Montana 

6 
5 
3 

20 

0.75 

0.75 

9 

2  5 

16 
15 

5 
38 

3 

3 
25 

4 

26 
31 
10 
52 
11 
11 
26 
7 

51 
52 
15 
79 
13 
14 
29 
6 

73 
79 
24 
96 
19 
18 
41 
11 

341 
359' 
298 
357 
213 
389 
347 
383 

333 
414 
313 
348 
257 
433 
403 
448 

406 
511 
374 
438 
300 
505 
478 
621 

436 

517 

Wyoming 

420 

421 

314 

Arizona 

553 

Utah 

493 

612 

Washington 

20 
25 
111 

50 
48 
154 

92 

72 

229 

141 

93 
276 

170 
112 
340 

495 
417 
491 

571 
489 
536 

609 
507 
580 

615 

Oregon 

542 

630 

*  Averages  are  not  strictly  comparable  between  years — 1909  and  1919  averages  are  per  dairy  cow; 
1924-a  average  per  cow  kept  for  milk  purposes.  The  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  estimates  of  number  of  milk  cows 
for  Jan.  1,  1924  and  Jan.  1,  1925  were  averaged  and  used  in  making  estimate  used  in  computation.  1924-b 
average  per  cow  milked  in  1924. 

Sources  of  data:  1889,  1899,  1909  milk  production.  U.  S.  Dept.  Commerce, 
Bur.  Census.  Milk  produced  on  farms  by  divisions  and  states:  1889-1919.  U.  S. 
Dept.  Commerce,  Bur.  Census,  Fourteenth  Census  of  the  U.  S.,  5:  p.  658.  1922. 
1924  data  from  individual  state  reports  issued  by  U.  S.  Dept.  Commerce,  Bur. 
Census,  U.  S.  Census  of  Agriculture,  1925.  1909,  1919  average  production  per 
cow,  U.  S.  Dept.  Commerce,  Bur.  Census.  Milk  produced  on  farms  by  divisions 
and  states,  1889-1919.  U.  S.  Dept.  Commerce,  Bur.  Census.  Fourteenth  census 
of  the  U.  S.,  5: p.  655.  1922.  1924a-1924&,  computations  by  author  based  upon 
returns  from  U.  S.  Census  of  Agriculture,  1925. 

Although  no  accurate  statistics  of  butterfat  production  for  the 
country  have  been  issued,  estimates  can  be  made  of  butterfat  pro- 
duction per  cow  in  California  since  1920  (table  11,  p.  38).  There 
has  been  a  consistent  improvement  in  the  production  of  the  cows  of 
the  state.  The  amount  of  butter  made  on  the  farm  for  domestic 
purposes  and  the  milk  used  on  farms  is  not  included  in  the  statistics 
of  butterfat  production  and  this  would  serve  to  increase  the  average 
amount  of  fat  per  cow.  The  statistics  as  used  are  comparable, 
although  the  average  production  per  cow  might  be  slightly  higher 
than  is  shown  in  table  11. 

There  are  several  causes  contributing  to  the  marked  increase  in 
efficiency  of  California  dairy  cattle  during  the  1920-1926  period. 
During  the  last  quarter  of  a  century  there  has  been  a  continuous 


42  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

flow  of  the  blood  of  the  dairy  breeds  into  this  state — a  fact  which 
should  serve  to  keep  production  on  the  upward  trend.  Cow-testing 
associations  have  been  fostered  in  this  state  to  a  marked  degree,  and 
in  the  wake  of  this  movement  have  come  better  sires,  improved  feeding 
practices,  and  advanced  methods  of  management. 

An  increase  in  the  production  of  the  dairy  cattle  now  in  California 
is  of  far  more  importance  than  the  establishment  of  new  dairies  or 
the  addition  of  cows  to  present  dairies.  Attention  to  matters  of 
improvement  will  enable  the  dairyman  to  meet  both  outside  compe- 
tition and  the  competition  of  other  lines  of  agricultural  endeavor. 
It  is  not  unreasonable  to  expect  an  annual  average  production  of 
265  pounds  of  butterfat  from  the  cows  of  the  state.  Production  also 
influences  the  value  of  dairy  cattle.  Data  on  sales  of  animals  by 
the  California  Sales  and  Pedigree  Company,  of  Sacramento,  Califor- 
nia, over  a  period  of  two  and  one-half  years,  January,  1921-June, 
1923,  give  some  indication  of  the  influence  of  production  on  the  sale 
value  of  dairy  cattle  (table  12,  p.  38).  These  records  of  production 
are  unfortunately  for  short  periods.  In  every  instance,  whether  open 
or  bred  heifers,  young  or  mature  cows  are  considered,  those  animals 
which  are  tested  or  have  tested  dams  have  sold  at  higher  prices  than 
those  without  any  evidence  of  production  behind  them. 

It  should  not  be  unreasonable  to  expect  a  considerable  part  of  the 
needed  increase  in  fat  production  in  the  next  few  years  to  come  from 
cows  of  higher  production  and  efficiency.  Stress  on  these  points 
rather  than  upon  numbers  merits  the  support  of  all  those  interested 
in  the  dairy  industry  and  the  state's  development. 


PRODUCTION    OF    DAIRY    PRODUCTS 

MANUFACTURING   AND   DISTRIBUTING  PLANTS   IN    THE 
WESTERN  STATES 

While  creameries  are  generally  scattered  throughout  the  eleven 
western  states,  this  is  not  so  true  of  other  types  of  dairy  plants 
(fig.  8).  California  has  a  large  number  of  plants  of  almost  all 
descriptions  distributed  through  the  dairy  districts  of  the  state.  Pro- 
duction is  generally  more  concentrated  in  California  than  in  the  other 
western  states  (fig.  9).  From  one  standpoint  this  is  a  desirable 
condition,  insuring  competition  between  the  various  dairy  industries 
for  the  farmer's  raw  material.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  likely  that 
too  large  a  number  of  plants  will  entail  a  heavy  overhead  charge, 
especially    when    there    are    insufficient    supplies    of    raw    material. 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY    INDUSTRY 


43 


Between  the  years  1919-20  and  1926  the  number  both  of  creameries 
and  cheese  factories  in  California  decreased  materially.  The  decrease 
in  the  former  is  especially  noticeable  when  Los  Angeles  County  is 
omitted.  The  tendency  for  fewer  plants  is  pronounced  in  almost  all 
sections  of  the  state  with  the  exception  of  those  in  the  larger  cities. 


LOCATION  OF 

creameries 

Cheese  factories 

milk  condensers 

butter  and  cheese 
factories 

factories 

manufacturing 

condensed  or  evaporated 

milk  and  either  butter 

or  cheese 


FACTORIES  MANUFACTURING 
CONDENSED  OR   EVAPORATED  MILK 
AND   EITHER   BUTTER  OR  CHEESE 
"ST 


Each  dor  represents  one  factory 
2^ 


Fig.  8. — Much  of  the  dairy  farming  is  done  in  the  vicinity  of  the  manufactur- 
ing plants.  Although  cream  may  be  shipped  a  considerable  distance,  the  milk 
received  by  cheese  factories  and  condenseries  is  generally  produced  within  a  few 
miles  of  the  manufacturing  plants.  The  data  for  California  were  compiled  from 
Frey,  J.  J.  Statistical  report  of  California  dairy  products,  1925.  California 
State  Dept.  Agriculture,  Special  Publication  62:  18-37.  1926.  Data  for  the  other 
ten  states  are  of  1926  and  were  furnished  by  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Econom- 
ics, Dairy  and  Poultry  Products  Division.  Figure  used  by  courtesy  of  Byron 
Hunter,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Bur.  Agr.  Econ. 

Although  many  of  the  city  plants  are  operated  on  a  large  scale 
(especially  in  San  Francisco),  a  considerable  number  are  for  the 
especial  purpose  of  utilizing  surplus  milk,  manufacturing  cottage 
cheese,  etc. 


44  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


THOUSANDS  OF  GALLONS  ^ 1~^                                    ^^\~-J^ 

I        I  Under      500  ||||  2^000  to  u,ooo                                                                               \     A 

m     500    to  1,000  gggjj  4,000   to  8,000                                                                                                     X^ 

V/t/A  i.ooo  to  2,000  m  8,000  and  Over 

Fig.  9. — Milk  production  in  the  western  states,  1924.  The  heaviest  milk  pro- 
duction in  the  western  section  of  the  United  States  is  in  California  and  Washing- 
ton. Population  makes  for  a  considerable  concentration  of  the  dairy  industry, 
especially  in  California.  Figure  used  by  courtesy  of  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Bur.  Agr. 
Econ.     Data  from  1925  farm  census. 

While  the  manufacture  of  ice  cream  in  California  has  increased 
at  a  most  rapid  rate,  the  number  of  plants  has  increased  still  more 
rapidly.  Consolidations  have  occurred,  but  there  have  been  ever 
increasing  numbers  of  concerns  manufacturing  only  a  few  gallons 
of  the  product  during  a  season.  This  increase  has  been  general  except 
in  San  Francisco  and  the  counties  of  the  San  Joaquin  Valley. 

The  number  of  market-milk  distributors  has  likewise  increased 
more  rapidly  than  the  amount  of  milk  distributed.  This  expansion 
has  also  been  general  in  the  state  with  the  exception  of  San  Francisco 
County.    In  the  latter  county  there  were  120  distributors  in  1906  and 


Bul.  4371 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF    THE   DAIRY    INDUSTRY 


45 


in  1927  but  16. 21  The  growth  in  other  sections  can  perhaps  be  ex- 
plained by  the  agricultural  surroundings  of  the  cities  and  towns, 
as  in  most  sections  milk-distributing  plants  may  be  established  with 
far  more  ease  than  in  a  city  such  as  San  Francisco. 

BUTTER  PRODUCTION 

United  States. — Owing  to  the  large  volume  of  butter  manufactured 
upon  farms,  statistics  on  the  total  butter  production  of  the  country 
have  not  been  entirely  satisfactory.  Revolutionary  changes  have 
taken  place  in  the  manufacture  of  butter.  Until  1917  farm-butter 
production  exceeded  that  of  the  creamery  product.  Since  1879  the 
latter  product  has  made  a  relatively  rapid  growth,  while  the  former 
has  been  declining,  the  peak  having  been  reached  about  1899. 
Whether  or  not  butter  production  over  the  last  several  decades  has 
been  gaining  more  or  less  rapidly  than  population  is  a  matter  of 
conjecture,  as  comparisons  based  upon  one  year's  data  are  almost 
certain  to  be  erroneous.  The  figures  obtained  by  improved  technique 
in  collecting  data  on  butter  production  since  1917  indicate  that  it 
has  gained  more  rapidly  than  population,  the  larger  amounts  of  butter 
having  found  on  outlet  in  increased  consumption. 


Cert 

x« 

\^ 

s-1917 

li 

">: 

'ft 

\ 

« 

\>^ 

\ 

*^^ 

8 

,192 

5" 

^ 

/ 

^»^^fc« 

^ 

•t** 

4. 

*£r 

O 

Uan.  rob.  Mar.  Apr.  May  *Juna         Julu  Aug.  Sepf:         Oct.  /Yov.  Dec. 

Fig.  10. — Percentage  monthly  production  of  creamery  butter,  United  States, 
1917,  1921,  1925  (expressed  as  percentage  of  totals  of  annual  production).  May, 
June,  July,  August,  and  September  are  the  months  of  the  largest  butter  produc- 
tion of  the  country.  The  necessity  for  cold  storage  is  clearly  shown  above.  Data 
from  table  15  (p.  47). 

21  Letter  from  Wm.  E.  Moore,  Milk  Dealers'  Association  of  San  Francisco,  to 
author. 


46 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  14 
Butter  Production  in  the  United  States  and  in  California,  1849-1926 

(Thousand  pounds— i.  e.,  000  omitted) 


United  States 

California 

Year 

Creamery 
1 

Farm 
2 

Total 
3 

Creamery 
4 

Farm 
5 

Total 
6 

1849 

313,345 
459,681 
514,083 
777,250 
1,024,223 
1,071,626 
994,651 

1 
3,095 
7,970 
14,084 
26,776 
20,853 
15,302 
14,348 
13,394 
12,439 
11,485 
10,530 
9,576 
8,622 
7,668 
6,113 
5,758 
5,375 
4,992 
4,609 
4,226 
3,844 
3,461 
3,078 

1859 

1869 

1879 

16,471 
181,285 
420,127 
624,765 

793,721 
1,205,508 
1,491,753 
1,621,796* 

2,074 
272 
13,147 
37,283 
45,989 
50,381 
54,941 
55,543 
59,286 
67,522 
70,030 
68,373 
60,485 
62,449 
68,127 
72,254 
74,010 
76,976 
78,562 
72,226 
74,118 

16,159 

1889 

27,048 

1899 

34,000 
52,585 
60,337 

1909 

1910 

1911 

63,775 

1912 

67,380 

1913 

67,028 

1914    .. 

786,003 

69,816 

1915 

77,098 

1916 

760,031 

759,511 

793,285 

849,994 

863,577 

1,055,938 

1,153,515 

1,252,214 

1,356,080 

1,361,526 

1,345,389 

78,652 

1917 

908,000 
710,000 
707,666 
675,000 
650,000 
625,000 
610,000 
600,000 
590,000 
580,000 

1,667,511 

1,503,285 

1,557,660* 

1,538,677 

1,704,938 

1,778,515 

1,862,214 

1,956,180 

1,951,526 

1,925,389 

76,041 

1918 

66,598 

1919 

68,207 

1920 

73,502 

1921 

77,246 

1922 

78,619 

1923..  .. 

81,202 

1924 

82,406 

1925 

75,687 

1926 

77,196 

*  Total  amount  of  butter  includes  17,955,316  pounds  manufactured  in  establishments  engaged  pri- 
marily in  manufacture  of  products  other  than  butter,  cheese,  or  condensed  milk  in  1919;  2,381,212  pounds 
in  1909. 

Sources  of  data: 

Col.  1,  1879,  1889,  1899,  1909,  1919,  U.  S.  Dept.  Commerce,  Bur.  Census. 
Fourteenth  census  of  the  U.  S.,  5:  661-662.  1922;  1914,  1916,  1917-1926,  fur- 
nished to  author  by  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Bur.  Agr.  Econ. 

Col.  2,  1849,  1859,  1869,  1879,  1889,  1899,  1909,  1919,  U.  S.  Dept.  Commerce, 
Bur.  Census.  Fourteenth  census  of  the  U.  S.,  5:  661-662.  1922;  1917-1926, 
furnished  to  author  by  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.;  1926,  U.  S.  Dept. 
Agr.,  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  The  Agricultural  Situation,  2:  p.  15.  1927.  (1926  figures 
subject  to  revision). 

Col.  3,  sum  of  cols.  1  and  2. 

Col.  4,  1879,  1889,  1899,  1909,  U.  S.  Dept.  Commerce,  Bur.  Census.  Fourteenth 
census  of  the  U.  S.,  5:  661-662.  1922;  1910-1925,  Frey,  J.  J.,  Statistical  report 
of  California  dairy  products,  1925.  California  State  Dept.  Agr.,  Special  Pub. 
62:  p.  12.  1926;  1926,  Frey,  J.  J.,  Statistical  report  of  California  dairy  products, 
1926.     California  State  Dept.  Agr.,  Special  Pub.  71:  p.  18.     1927. 

Col.  5,  1849,  1859,  1869,  1879,  1889,  1899,  1909,  1919,  U.  S.  Dept.  Commerce. 
Fourteenth  census  of  the  U.  S.,  5:  p.  662.  1922;  1924,  U.  S.  Dept.  of  Commerce, 
Bur.  Census.  United  States  census  of  agriculture,  1925,  California,  p.  7.  1920, 
1910-1918,  1920-1923,  1925-1926,  estimated  by  author. 

Col.  6,  sum  of  cols.  4  and  5. 


Bul.437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS  OF   THE   DAIRY    INDUSTRY 


47 


Seasonal  Production  in  the  United  States. — As  is  evident  from 
table  15  the  seasonal  variation  in  the  production  of  creamery  butter 
has  been  changing  during  the  past  nine  or  ten  years  (fig.  10),  hence 
a  single  number  representing  the  index  for  seasonal  variation  during 
a  given  month  would  not  be  accurate.  With  the  exception  of  the 
month  of  May,  there  has  been  a  distinct  trend  toward  an  equal  pro- 
duction (8.33  per  cent)  for  each  month  of  the  year  during  the  period 
1917-1926.  This  tendency  has  undoubtedly  had  the  effect  of  lessening 
the  proportion  of  butter  placed  in  cold  storage  in  the  country  as  a 
whole.  The  months  of  November,  December,  January,  and  February 
are  still  considerably  below  normal  in  production,  while  May,  June, 
July,  and  August  are  above  the  normal. 


TABLE  15 

Monthly  Production  of  Creamery  Butter  Expressed  as  Percentages  of 
Total  Annual  Production,  United  States,  1917-1926 


Year 

Jan. 

Feb. 

Mar. 

Apr. 

May 

June 

July 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

Total 

1917 

5.8 
5.6 
6.2 
5.7 
5.6 
6.4 
6.7 
6.4 
6.4 
6.7 

5.1 
5.3 
5.2 
5.4 
5.4 
5.8 
5.9 
6.4 
5.9 
6.5 

6.2y 

6.2 

6.5 

6.5 

6.41 

6.9 

7.1 

7.1 

6.8 

7.7 

7.1 
7.2 
7.9 
7.0 
7.8 
7.5 
8.0 
7.8 
7.9 
8.3 

9.9 
10.8 
12.2 
10.1 
11.3 
11.5 
10.7 
10.3 
10.7 
10.7 

13.0 
13.2 
14.0 
13.3 
12.4 
13.0 
12.6 
12.0 
12.0 
12.3 

12.4 
12.3 
12.3 
12.8 
10.6 
11.7 
11.8 
12.1 
11.6 
11.0 

11.1 
10.7 

9.9 
10.5 
10.6 

9.9 

9.7 
10.2 
10.0 

9.2 

10.1 
9.1 
8.1 
8.9 
8.5 
8.0 
8.2 
8.5 
8.0 
8.0 

7.4 
8.1 
6.9 
7.5 
8.0 
7.2 
7.1 
7.4 
7.7 
7.1 

5.6 
5.8 
5.3 
6.2 
6.6 
6.0 
6.0 
5.7 
6.3 
6.2 

6.3 
5.7 
5.5 
6.1 
6.8 
6.1 
6.2 
5.1 
6.7 
6.3 

100.0 

1918 

100.0 

1919 

100.0 

1920 

100.0 

1921 

100.0 

1922 

100.0 

1923 

100.0 

1924 

100.0 

1925 

100.0 

1926 

100.0 

Sources  of  data:  Computations  by  author  based  upon  the  monthly  production 
of  creamery  butter.  Monthly  production  of  creamery  butter,  1917-1924.  U.  S. 
Dept.  Agr.,  Creamery  butter  production,  United  States,  1917-1924.  U.  S.  Dept. 
Agr.,  Yearbook,  1924:  p.  881.  1925.  1925-1926,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Crops  and 
Markets.     1925-1926. 


Areas  of  Production  in  the  United  States. — Approximately  80  per 
cent  of  the  creamery  butter  is  produced  in  the  east  and  west  north 
central  states  (fig.  11).  During  the  eight  years  1918-1925  actual  de- 
creases in  creamery-butter  production  have  come  about  in  the  middle 
and  north  Atlantic  states,  while  increases  have  been  especially  notable 
in  certain  of  the  middle-western,  southern,  and  western  states. 
Undoubtedly  a  considerable  part  of  the  increase  in  the  middle-western 
and  southern  states  has  been  accompanied  by  a  decrease  in  the  output 
of  farm  butter,  so  that  the  actual  increase  of  butter  production  has 
not  been  as  great  as  it  might  appear. 


48  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

There  is  apparently  a  tendency  for  production  to  center  in  the 
now  leading  butter-production  states  of  the  middle  west,  namely, 
Minnesota,  Iowa,  Wisconsin,  Nebraska,  and  Ohio,  although  the  last- 
named  state  has  shown  little  or  no  increase  during  the  five  years 
1921-1925. 

The  greatest  relative  increase  in  butter  production  (1917-1925) 
has  been  in  the  western  states  other  than  California.22  In  the  latter 
state  market  milk  and  cream  production  have  tended  to  displace 
butter  production- in  relative  importance,  a  tendency  which  is  in 
evidence  in  the  more  populous  areas  of  the  north  Atlantic  states. 

California. — In  California  there  has  been  a  greater  competition 
between  crops.  In  analyzing  the  reasons  for  the  failure  of  a  larger 
relative  growth  in  butter  production  not  only  has  the  greater  com- 
petition between  crops  been  left  out  of  account  but  in  addition  butter 
may  be  a  product  of  least  disadvantage  elsewhere.     The  principle  of 


22  Straight  lines  of  trend  fitted  to  yearly  production  data  of  creamery  butter 
for  the  United  States  and  the  western  states  during  the  period  1918-1926  give  the 
following  equations  and  the  percentages  of  increase  during  the  nine  years.  All 
equations  center  at  July  1,  1922. 

Equation  Increase 

United  States y=  1,131,101,700+86,614,100  x  88.3  per  cent 

Western  States  (excluding  California) y  =      87,490,200+  7,789,167  x  110.6  per  cent 

Western  States  (including  California) y  =    156,627,200+  9,885,350  x  67.5  per  cent 

California y=      69,137,000+  2,096,200  i  27.6  per  cent 

Arizona y=        1,161,700+        36,570  x  28.8  percent 

Colorado y=      16,031,000+     883,317  i  56.5  per  cent 

Idaho* 

Montana y=        9,372,000+  1,504,150  x  358.6  per  cent 

Nevada y=       2,255,100+      126,030  x  40.3  percent 

New  Mexico* 

Oregon y=      17,754,400+  1,346,960  i  87.1  percent 

Utah y=        5,935,900+      653,750  z  157.5  per  cent 

Washington y=      24,077,300+  1,436,400  x  62.7  per  cent 

Wyoming y=        1,567,100+      155,600  i  131.8  per  cent   , 

*  The  increases  in  both  Idaho  and  New  Mexico  have  been  such  that  suitable  curves  cannot  be  drawn. 
In  1918  the  amount  of  creamery  butter  manufactured  in  Idaho  was  4,330,000  pounds,  while  in  1926  the 
total  was  18,456,000  pounds  or  an  increase  of  326.2  per  cent.  New  Mexico  manufactured  10,000  pounds 
in  1918  and  455,000  pounds  in  1926. 

Since  considerable  quantities  of  butter  are  produced  on  farms  in  the  United 
States  and  in  the  western  states  outside  of  California,  an  attempt  has  been  made 
to  indicate  the  total  increase  in  butter  production  of  the  United  States  and  its 
sections.  This  has  been  accomplished  by  adding  to  the  computed  production  of 
creamery  butter  (above  equations)  for  1918  and  1926  the  estimated  production  of 
farm  butter  for  the  same  years.  These  latter  estimates  are  based  on  farm  butter 
production  in  the  various  states  in  1919  and  1924.  These  figures  show  more  accu- 
rately the  relative  increases  than  the  figures  on  creamery  butter.  The  increases  on 
this  basis  are: 

United  States 38. 8  per  cent 

Western  States  (excluding  California) 66.0  per  cent 

Western  States  (including  California 46. 6  per  cent 

California 20.5  percent 

Arizona 35.6  percent 

Colorado 33.8  per  cent 

Idaho  (comparison  of  actual  data  1918  and  1926) 140.5  per  cent 

Montana 118.4  percent 

Nevada 31.2  per  cent 

New  Mexico  (comparison  of  actual  data  1918  and  1926) 69.9  per  cent 

Oregon 62.2  percent 

Utah 85.4  percent 

Washington 43.9  percent 

Wyoming 84.4  percent 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY    INDUSTRY 


49 


comparative  advantage  is  stated  by  Black  as  follows:  ''Each  area 
tends  to  produce  those  products  for  which  its  ratio  of  advantage  is 
greatest  as  compared  with  other  areas,  or  its  ratio  of  disadvantage  is 
least,  up  to  the  point  where  the  land  may  be  needed  by  some  product 
less  advantaged  in  the  area  in  order  to  meet  the  demand  for  them  at 
such  prices  as  will  come  to  prevail  under  such  circumstances."23 

The  failure  of  California  to  increase  butter  production  more 
rapidly  has  been  the  subject  of  considerable  discussion  within  the 
state.  Whether  the  production  of  butter  does  increase  will  depend 
on  more  factors  than  the  one  usually  mentioned — distance  from 
markets.  Such  factors  as  competing  crops,  both  in  this  state  and 
adjacent  states,  will  have  to  be  taken  into  account,  together  with  those 
of  land  values,  crop  yields,  wages,  etc.  It  is  not  possible  to  stop 
at  state  lines  in  the  discussion  of  this  problem. 


Thousand    Per 
pounds     cent 

Minnesota  199,960  /6  2 
Wisconsin  144.268  II. 7 
I  ova.  140688  11.4 
Ohio  80.122  6. 5 
Nebraska  76.713  6.2 
California  73.714  60 
ffichiyon  64237  52 
Illinois  52514  4.3 
Indiana  51.243  4.2 
Missouri  50,712  4.1 
Hon  sos  42,898  3.5 
Washinjton25.'d27  2.1 
5oJ?otota  24.263  2.0 
fojokota  24244  2.0 
Sets  York  22320  1.8 
0ther5tattsf62.002   13.1 

Fig.  11. — Eelative  importance  of  the  chief  states  producing  creamery  butter 
for  the  period  1921-1925.  California  ranked  sixth  among  the  states  in  creamery- 
butter  production,  considering  the  average  of  the  years  1921-1925.  If  farm 
butter  production  data  were  available  other  states  would  be  listed  in  advance  of 
California.  Data  computed  by  author  on  the  basis  of  the  following:  1921-1924, 
U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Division  of  Dairy  and  Poultry  Products.  Creamery  butter  pro- 
duction in  factories  in  the  United  States.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Yearbook,  1925:  p. 
1084.     1926.     1925  data  furnished  to  author  by  Bur.  Agr.  Econ. 

23  Black,  J.  D.  Production  economics,  xvi  +  975  pp.,  79  figs.  Henry  Holt  and 
Co.,  New  York.     1926. 


50 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


If  the  population  of  California  continues  to  increase  it  is  highly 
probable  that  the  trend  in  figure  12  will  continue  and  that  the  state 
will  be  dependent  more  in  the  future  than  at  present  for  its  supply 
of  dairy  products  from  points  outside  the  state  boundaries.  It  might 
be  well  to  consider  the  eleven  western  states  as  an  entity  in  the  matter 
of  the  semi-perishable  dairy  products. 


of  Rounds' 


/OO 
90 

eo 
ro 
eo 
so 


Creamery  -Buffer  Producfion  -  Unifad  Sfa-fes 


Farm    Buffer    Praduaft'an    -  United  Sfafes 


Creamery —Buff er    Praduafi'on   -   Co/ifbrni'a 


S^^S 


I9Z?. 


J9Z3 


I9Z4- 


/9Z5 


I9Z6 


Fig.  12. — Production  of  creamery  butter  in  the  United  States  and  California, 
1922-1927,  and  farm  butter  in  the  United  States,  1925-1927.  This  graph  shows 
an  upward  trend  in  the  monthly  production  of  creamery  butter  from  1922  to  1927 
and  considerable  difference  between  the  highest  monthly  production  during  the 
flush  season  and  the  lowest  monthly  production  during  the  slack  season.  While 
monthly  data  for  farm  butter  are  available  for  a  short  time  only,  indications  are 
that  there  is  a  greater  relative  fluctuation  between  the  high  and  low  months. 

Production  of  creamery  butter  in  California  has  not  shown  a  definite  trend 
during  the  period  depicted.  Production  is  far  more  uniform  in  California  and 
the  peaks  and  troughs  are  from  two  to  three  months  in  advance  of  those  in  the 
country  as  a  whole. 

Sources  of  data:  1.  Creamery-butter  and  farm  production  for  the  United 
States  from  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Crops  and  Markets.  2.  Creamery-butter  production 
for  California,  1922-1925,  computed  by  author  from  records  in  the  Bureau  of 
Dairy  Control,  California  State  Dept.  Agr.,  and  1926  data  furnished  author  by 
Dr.  J.  J.  Frey,  Chief  of  the  Bur.  of  Dairy  Control,  California  State  Dept.  Agr., 
Sacramento,  Calif. 

A  rapid  change  from  the  production  of  farm  to  creamery  butter 
occurred  in  California,  the  maximum  of  the  former  having  been 
produced  about  1889.     Since  then  farm-butter  production  has  been 


BUL.  437]  ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY  51 

declining  rapidly,  and  was  exceeded  in  amount  by  creamery  butter 
during  the  first  part  of  the  decade  1900-1910.  At  present  the  amount 
produced  is  small. 

Seasonal  Variation  in  California. — The  dairy  statistics  of  the 
Bureau  of  Dairy  Control,  California  State  Department  of  Agricul- 
ture, have  been  utilized  in  obtaining  the  seasonal  production  of  butter 
within  the  state.  Although  the  period  on  which  calculations  are 
based  is  rather  limited,  the  results  appear  worthy  of  presentation, 
since  there  is  little  disagreement  between  the  five  years  studied  and, 
in  addition,  the  figures  obtained  agree  substantially  with  the  monthly 
record  of  production  obtained  during  1921  by  the  United  States 
Department  of  Agriculture.  With  100  as  the  average  monthly  butter 
production,  the  actual  indices  of  seasonal  variation  for  butter  pro- 
duction in  the  state  are  as  follows: 

January   91.5             July    105.9 

February   89.2             August   95.1 

March  115.4             September   83.0 

April  130.0             October    85.3 

May  123.9             November    82.6 

June   112.1             December  86.0 

A  comparison  of  production  in  the  United  States  and  California 
indicates  that  there  is  less  variation  in  the  latter  than  in  the  former. 
Another  characteristic  of  California  production  is  its  earliness,  which 
is  strikingly  brought  out  in  the  months  of  March  and  April.  In  a 
number  of  years  in  the  past  this  heavy  production  in  the  state  has 
caused  prices  to  sag,  and  at  times  it  has  been  found  profitable  to 
ship  butter  out  of  the  state  during  the  early  spring.  The  higher 
winter  production  within  the  state  is  noticeable.  California  does 
occupy  a  favorable  position  in  the  seasonal  production  of  butter. 

Areas  of  Production  in  California. — The  San  Joaquin  Valley  and 
the  coast  counties  north  of  San  Francisco  Bay  are  the  two  main 
butter-producing  areas  of  the  state.  On  account  of  changes  in  the 
methods  of  obtaining  statistics  comparable  data  are  available  only 
since  July,  1919.  No  pronounced  trend  is  evident  in  either  section. 
During  this  same  period  there  has  been  a  tendency  to  manufacture 
less  butter  in  San  Francisco ;  this  has  brought  about  a  decrease  in  the 
production  of  the  south  coast  counties  and  a  resultant  increase  in  the 
Sacramento  Valley  and  mountain  areas.  The  southern  California 
section  has  not  shown  a  definite  trend,  the  increase  of  butter  manu- 
factured in  Los  Angeles  preventing  an  actual  decrease  (table  101, 
p.  185). 


52 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


CHEESE  PRODUCTION 

United  States. — The  transition  from  the  production  of  farm  cheese 
to  that  of  factory  cheese  occurred  about  the  time  of  the  Civil  War, 
and  today  the  production  of  the  former  product  is  almost  negligible. 
Although  the  trend  of  production  has  been  upward  since  1909,  it 
gives  evidence  of  considerable  fluctuation,  especially  if  it  is  compared 
with  that  of  butter  production.  Since  1916  production  has  more  than 
kept  pace  with  population.  An  outlet  has  been  found  in  increased 
per-capita  consumption,  which  since  1920  has  necessitated  increasing 
imports  (table  85,  p.  153).  Data  for  1926  indicate  a  considerable 
decrease  in  production  compared  with  1925 ;  the  first  six  months  of 
1927  give  evidence  of  a  still  further  decrease  when  compared  with 
the  similar  periods  for  1925  and  1926.  Approximately  80  per  cent 
of  the  cheese  made  is  of  the  American  type,  although  since  1923  there 
has  been  an  extremely  large  increase  in  the  production  of  cottage,  pot, 
and  baker's  cheese. 


TABLE  16 


Production  of  Farm  and  Factory  Cheese  in  the  United  States 

(Thousand  pounds— i.e.,  000  omitted) 


Year 

Factory  cheese 

Farm  cheese 

Total  cheese 

1849 

105,536 
103,664 
53,492 
27,272 
18,727 
16,372 

105,536 

1859 

103,664 

1869 

109,435 
215,885 
238,035 
282,634 
317,145 
311,176 
377,513 
314,717 
372,540 
352,622 
379,320 
362,431 
355,838 
369,980 
394,697 
413,940 
443,514 
427,416 

162,927 

1879 

243,158 

1889 

256,762 

1899 , 

299,007 

1904 

1909 

9,406 

320,582 

1914     . 

1916 

1917 

1918 

1919 

1920 

1921 

6,000 
5,000 
4,250 
4,000 
4,000 

361,838 

1922 

374,980 

1923            

398,947 

1924    

417,940 

1925 

447,514 

1926                                

Sources  of  data:  1849-1925,  furnished  to  author  through  courtesy  of  T.  E. 
Pirtle,  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.,  Washington,  D.  C.  1926,  furnished  to  author  by  U.  S. 
Dept.  Agr.,  Bur.  Agr.  Econ. 


BUL.  437J  ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY  53 

wm 

Two  states,  Wisconsin  and  New  York,  have  produced  between  83.2 
and  85.1  per  cent  of  all  the  cheese  manufactured  in  the  United  States 
during  the  eight  years  1918-1925.  The  former  state  during  the  same 
period  produced  between  66.0  and  72.2  per  cent  of  the  total,  increas- 
ing at  the  expense  of  New  York.  The  remaining  production  is 
scattered. 

With  the  exception  of  California,  in  which  a  relative  and  actual 
decrease  has  taken  place,  the  western  states  have  made  the  greatest 
increases  in  the  country.24  These  increases  have  been  noteworthy  in 
Washington,  Idaho,  and  Colorado,  while  Oregon,  with  its  large  actual 
production,  has  experienced  a  slower  relative  growth.  Oregon  is  now 
(1924-1925)   the  third  largest  state  in  cheese  production. 

Seasonal  Variation. — During  the  six  months  beginning  May  first, 
between  70  and  80  per  cent  of  the  American  cheese  has  been  made 
in  the  years  1917-1924.  During  these  eight  years  there  has  been  a 
pronounced  tendency  for  a  more  even  production  throughout  the  year. 
Swiss-cheese  production  gives  evidence  of  a  greater  seasonal  variation 
than  that  of  American  cheese,  almost  90  per  cent  being  manufactured 
in  the  six  months  beginning  May  first. 

California. — Production  statistics  of  the  United  States  Department 
of  Agriculture  and  the  Bureau  of  Dairy  Control  of  the  California 
State  Department  of  Agriculture  are  not  in  agreement.  Because  of 
the  system  of  collecting  complete  statistics  of  the  latter  agency,  and 
to  the  checks  upon  such  information,  it  is  probable  that  its  data  are 
the  more  accurate.  Both  sets  of  data  indicate  a  downward  trend  in 
cheese  production  in  this  state  during  the  ten  years  1917-1926.     The 

24  The  production  of  cheese  on  the  farm  is  negligible.  Straight  line  trends 
have  been  fitted  to  the  production  statistics  for  the  years  1918-1926.  The 
equations  are  given  below  together  with  the  computed  increase  or  decrease  over 
the  period.  Attention  has  already  been  called  to  certain  discrepancies  existing 
between  data  of  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics  and  the  Bureau  of  Dairy 
Control  of  the  California  State  Department  of  Agriculture.  In  order  that  the 
data  may  be  comparable  statistics  of  the  former  bureau  have  been  used  in  making 
calculations.     All  equations  have  their  origin  at  July  1,  1922. 

Equation 

United  States 2/=391,555,560+9,276,300  x  20.9  per  cent  increase 

Western  State  (exclusive  of  California) y  =  21,671,780+2,254,300  x  142. 6  per  cent  increase 

California y=     5,984,560—    716,670  x  64 . 8  per  cent  decrease 

Colorado y  =        954,110+    153,380  i  274.6  per  cent  increase 

Oregon 2/=     9,048,000+    411,250  i  44.4  per  cent  increase 

Washington y=     2,422,440+    337,300  x  251.4  per  cent  increase 

Curves  do  not  fit  data  of  the  remaining  western  states.  The  following 
increase  or  decrease  is  between  the  actual  reported  production  in  1926  and  1918. 

Arizona 29. 9  per  cent  increase 

Idaho 284.8  percent  increase 

Montana 212. 1  per  cent  increase 

Nevada Data  lacking. 

New  Mexico Data  lacking. 

Utah 59.9  per  cent  increase 

Wyoming 87. 1  per  cent  increase 


54  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

production  of  various  types  of  cheese  manufactured  in  California  has 
fluctuated  considerably.  The  general  trend  of  Cheddar,  California, 
Jack,  and  Swiss-cheese  production  has  been  downward.  Since  1922- 
1923  there  has  been  a  noticeable  tendency  for  an  increase  in  the 
production  of  soft  cheese. 

While  every  area  of  the  state  has  given  evidence  of  a  tendency 
to  decrease  the  production  of  cheese,  the  coast  sections  both  north  and 
south  of  San  Francisco  Bay  lead  the  state  in  production;  Stanislaus, 
however,  is  the  leading  cheese  county.  Not  only  on  account  of  climatic 
conditions,  but  also  on  account  of  the  greater  seasonal  variation  in 
milk  production  and  transportation,  the  manufacture  of  cheese  adapts 
itself  to  coast  regions.  These  same  conditions  may  in  the  future  lead 
to  a  larger  production  in  the  mountainous  regions  in  the  northern  and 
eastern  sections  of  the  state.  Production  in  the  southern  section  of 
the  state  is  somewhat  erratic,  owing  to  the  great  variations  in  the 
production  of  both  Los  Angeles  and  Imperial  counties. 

Cottage-cheese  production  has  shown  a  marked  upward  trend  since 
1922-1923  as  the  following  production  data  show : 

1919-1920    1,280,093  pounds 

1920-1921    1,968,445 

1921-1922    2,665,420 

1922-1923    1,512,006 

1923-1924    3,625,058 

1925    10,051,863 

1926    11,073,076 

This  increase  has  been  the  result  of  new  and  better  methods  of 
manufacture  and  distribution. 


PEODUCTION  OF  CONDENSED  AND  EVAPOEATED  MILK 

The  concentrated  milk  process,  invented  just  before  the  Civil  War, 
has  been  responsible  for  one  of  the  most  rapidly  growing  of  the  major 
dairy  industries.  The  European  War  and  the  relief  work  abroad 
immediately  following  greatly  stimulated  production,  the  peak  being 
reached  in  1919.  Production  decreased  from  1919  until  1922.  Owing 
to  the  recovery  of  the  industry  abroad,  the  stimulation  of  the  industry 
at  home,  and  the  resultant  low  wholesale  prices  in  this  country,  pro- 
duction has  been  stationary  during  the  four  years  1923-1926.  During 
the  latter  year  demand  went  ahead  of  production  with  a  resultant 
depletion  of  stocks  on  hand.  The  first  eight  months  of  1927  gave 
evidence  of  a  greatly  increased  production  over  1926,  accompanied  by 
an  increase  in  the  trade  output.    Stocks  were  again  built  up. 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY 


55 


Over  80  per  cent  in  1925  (83.8  per  cent)  of  the  production  is 
centered  in  the  states  of  Wisconsin,  New  York,  Michigan,  California, 
Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  Illinois,  and  Washington.  Certain  pronounced 
shifts  have  been  going  on  between  these  states.  Since  1914  California 
has  been  increasing  production  more  rapidly  than  any  of  the  dom- 
inant producing  states,  although  the  largest  aggregate  increase  has 
been  in  Wisconsin,  where  over  30  per  cent  of  the  product  is  now 
manufactured.  Relative  decreases  have  occurred  in  both  Illinois 
and  Washington. 

Production  in  California  has  shown  a  distinct  upward  trend 
(table  17).  An  increase  in  the  export  trade  has  come  about  from 
California  ports.  On  the  production  side  this  state  offers  marked 
advantages  in  most  sections,  because  a  more  constant  supply  of  milk 
can  be  obtained,  and  in  addition  production  is  somewhat  concentrated. 


TABLE  17 

Production  of  Condensed  and  Evaporated  Milk  in  the  United  States 

and  California,  1899,  1904,  1909,  1914,  1916-1926 

(Thousand  pounds— i.e.,  000  omitted) 


Year 

United  States 

California 

1899 

1904 

186,922 

308,485 

494,797 

873,410 

997,835 

1,353,606 

1,674,898 

2,030,958 

1,578,015 

1,464,163 

1,431,349 

1,774,881 

1,700,548 

1,757,858 

1,733,504 

4,314 

1909 

16,983 

1914 

1916 

18,610 

1917 

1918 

1919 

46,600 

1920 

84,926 

1921 

67,195 

1922 

98,050 

1923 

114,651 

1924 

120,311 

1925 

138,991 

1926 

150,063 

Sources  of  data:  United  States,  1899,  1904,  1909,  1914,  California,  1899,  1909, 
1914,  U.  S.  Dept.  Commerce.  Butter,  cheese,  and  condensed  milk.  U.  S.  Dept. 
Commerce,  Bur.  of  Census,  Census  of  manufactures,  1914,  2:  353-354.  1919. 
United  States,  1914-1924,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Production  of  condensed  and  evapo- 
rated milk.     U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Yearbook,  1925:  p.  1076.     1926. 

United  States,  1925-1926,  information  to  author  from  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  Califor- 
nia, 1916,  State  Dairy  Bureau,  Beport  of  State  Dairy  Bur.,  Eleventh  Biennial 
Report,  1915-1916:  p.  43.  1916.  (Year  ending  September  30.)  California, 
1920-1924,  years  ending  June  30;  3925-1926,  calendar  years — Frey,  J.  J.  Statis- 
tical report  of  California  dairy  products,  1926.  California  State  Dept.  Agr. 
Special  Pub.  71:  p.  18.     1927. 

Note. — Data  for  1919,  1921,  and  1923  reported  by  the  Dept.  Commerce  for  the 
United  States  are  2,150,182,000,  1,758,451,000,  and  1,821,143,315  pounds  respec- 
tivelv.    See  table  18. 


56 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  18 

Changes  in  Production  of  Condensed  and  Evaporated  Milk, 

1904,  1909,  1914,  1919,  1921,  1925 

(Million  pounds— i.e.,  000,000  omitted) 


State 


1904 


Total 


Per 

cent 


1909 


Total 


Per 
cent 


1914 


Total 


Per 
cent 


1919 


Total 


Per 

cent 


1921 


Total 


Per 
cent 


1925 


Total 


Per 

cent 


Wisconsin 

New  York 

Michigan 

California 

Pennsylvania ... 

Ohio 

Illinois 

Washington 

All  other  states 
Total  of  U.  S.... 


12 
102 


3.7 

33.2 

9.0 

2.5 

6.6 

.6 

30.3 

4.5 

9.6 

100  0 


31 
121 
32 


38 
115 

54 

79 
495 


6.2 

24.4 

6.5 

* 

5.3 
7.6 
23.1 
10.8 
16.1 
100.0 


150 
132 

77 

70 
51 
167 
85 
143 
873 


17.1 
15.1 


8.0 
5.8 

19.2 
9.8 

16.4 
100.0 


513 

480 
182 
47t 
185 
119 
178 
165 
281 
2,150 


23.9 
22.3 

8.4 
2.2 
8.6 
5  5 
8.3 
7.7 
13.1 
100.0 


519 
255 
156 
111 
122 


112 

271 
1,758 


533 
261 
147 
147 
114 
101 


281 
1,758 


30.3 
14.8 
8.4 
8.3 
6  5 
5.8 
5.0 
4.9 
16.0 
100.0 


*  California  included  in  all  other  states.         t  Exclusive  of  condensed  milk. 

Sources  of  data: 

1904,  1909,  1914,  U.  S.  Dept.  Commerce.  Butter,  cheese  and  condensed  milk. 
U.  S.  Dept.  Commerce,  Bur.  Census,  Census  of  manufactures,  1914,  2:  353-354. 
1919. 

1919,  U.  S.  Dept.  Commerce.  Manufactures  of  Butter,  cheese,  and  condensed 
milk,  U.  -S.  Dept.  Commerce,  Bur.  Census,  Thirteenth  Census  of  the  United  States, 
10:  p.  34.     1923. 

1921,  U.  S.  Dept.  Commerce,  Bur.  Census.  Butter,  cheese,  and  condensed  milk 
manufactured,  Census  of  Manufactures,  1923:  10-11.     1925. 

1925,  data  furnished  author  by  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Bur.  Agr.  Econ. 


Thousands 
Go//ons 


Z8OOO0- 


240000 
ZOO  OOO 
/<bO  OOO 
1ZOOOO 
BO  OOO 
AOOOO 


7/n 

snc/- 

1909    WO 


13        14-      /9/S      16 


/8       /9      /9ZO    &/ 


Z3      Z4     /9Z3 

Fig.  13. — Ice-cream  production  in  the  United  States,  1909-1925.  The  produc- 
tion of  ice  cream  increased  over  200  per  cent  between  1909  and  1925.  The  in- 
crease has  been  regular  because  production  can  be  and  is  carefully  regulated. 
Evidence  points  to  the  influence  of  prosperity  on  production.  Temperature  has 
also  a  decided  influence.  Keports  for  1927  (up  to  August)  state  that  production 
is  low  owing  to  low.  summer  temperature. 

The  equation  for  the  line  of  trend  is  27  =  207,284.52  +  13,303.83  x,  origin  1917. 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY 


57 


TABLE  19 

Estimated  Production  of  Ice  Cream  in  the  United  States 
1909-1926 


Year 

Thousand 
gallons 

Year 

Thousand 
gallons 

Year 

Thousand 
gallons 

1909 

80,000 
95,450 
138,000 
160,000 
172,380 
163,761 

1915 

175,224 
208,320 
210,000 
220,000 
230,000 
260,000 

1921 

244,000 

1910 

1916 

1922 

263,520 

1911 

1917 

1923 

294,900 

1912 

1918 

1924 

285,550 

1913 

1919 

1925 

322,729 

1914 

1920 

1926 

324,665 

Sources  of  data:  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Ice  cream:  estimated  production  in  the 
United  States,  1909-1925.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Yearbook,  1925:  p.  1083.  1926. 
1926,  information  from  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  to  author,  August  25,  1927. 


PBODUCTTON  OF  ICE  CBEAM 

United  States. — Ice-cream  production  has  steadily  and  consistently 
increased  (fig.  13).  Since  ice  cream  is  usually  not  made  for  long 
periods  in  advance  of  consumption,  the  production  has  been  such 
that  it  most  closely  follows  demand.  The  increase  during  the  period 
1909-1925  has  been  211.1  per  cent  and  population  increase  during 
the  same  period  was  25.9  per  cent.25 

California. — Ice-cream  production  has  increased  more  rapidly  in 
California  since  1919  than  it  has  in  the  nation.  Production  in  1926 
was  almost  88  per  cent  greater  than  that  in  the  year  1919-1920.  As 
in  the  nation,  the  increased  production  has  found  an  outlet  not  only 
in  the  increased  population  but  in  an  increased  per-capita  consump- 
tion (p.  70). 

While  ice-cream  production  is  highly  seasonable,  there  are  con- 
siderable differences  in  the  seasonal  variation  of  different  sections 
of  the  state.  Production  in  the  San  Francisco  Bay  region  is  more 
evenly  distributed  throughout  the  year  than  that  of  any  other  section. 
The  southern  California  area  is  next.  The  variation  in  the  Sacra- 
mento and  San  Joaquin  valleys  is  great,  the  ratio  between  months  of 
low  and  high  production  being  in  some  instances  as  high  as  1:15  with 
individual  firms. 


25  Line  of  trend  of  ice-cream  production: 

y=207,284.52-H3,303.83  z 
Equation  centering  July  1,  1917   (see  table  19). 
Line  of  trend  of  population  data: 

y  =  102,788,880+1,473,250  z  (centering  July  1,  1917) 


58  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


PRODUCTION  AND  DISTRIBUTION  OF  MARKET  MILK 

Distribution  of  Market  Milk  in  California. — Distribution  of 
market  milk  rather  than  production  is  reported.  During  the  short 
time  for  which  data  are  available  a  large  expansion  has  been  neces- 
sary to  supply  the  demand  in  southern  California  and  in  the  San 
Francisco  Bay  region.  Since  1921  an  annual  increase  of  between  five 
and  six  million  gallons  of  milk  has  been  required  to  fill  the  demands 
of  the  eight  southern  counties,  and  increases  of  slightly  over  a  million 
gallons  annually  have  been  required  in  the  San  Francisco  Bay  region. 
There  seems  to  have  been  but  little  difficulty  in  meeting  these  added 
needs,  as  the  number  of  cows  has  at  times  been  increased  too  rapidly. 
For  the  entire  state  the  demands  for  market  milk  have  increased  at 
a  rate  of  approximately  six  and  one-half  million  gallons  yearly.  Even 
allowing  for  possible  errors  in  the  data  available,  especially  for  the 
earlier  years,  the  increase  has  been  far  more  rapid  than  that  in  human 
population.  Increased  per-capita  consumption  has  been  responsible 
for  a  large  part  of  the  increase,  and  this  in  turn  has  undoubtedly  been 
caused  by  quality  and  sanitation,  relative  cheapness,  and  perhaps 
in  part  by  prohibition. 

Distribution  of  Market  Cream. — Coupled  with  the  increase  in 
market-milk  distribution  has  come  an  increase  in  the  amount  of 
market  cream  distributed.  The  production  statistics  are  not  strictly 
comparable,  as  they  do  not  distinguish  between  the  several  different 
types  of  cream.  For  the  years  for  which  data  are  available,  the 
production  has  been  as  follows : 

1919-1920  3,116,033  gallons 

1920-1921  4,410,508 

1921-1922  _ 3,963,820 

1922-1923  2,768,060 

1923-1924  3,991,611 

1925  5,765,525 

1926  5,905,346 

The  falling-off  in  1921-1922  is  in  part  accounted  for  by  the  busi- 
ness depression  at  that  time.  Although  the  data  are  insufficient  it  is 
probable  that  consumption  is  influenced  to  a  considerable  degree  by 
general  business  conditions. 

Sources  of  Los  Angeles  Milk  and  Cream.  Supply. — Owing  to  the 
continued  expansion  of  the  city  of  Los  Angeles,  both  in  population 
and  area,  exact  comparisons  between  the  volume  of  milk  and  cream 
required  and  their  sources  over  considerable  periods  of  time  are  un- 
reliable.    A  constantly  widening  area  has  been  required  to  furnish 


Bul.  437  J 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF    THE   DAIRY    INDUSTRY 


59 


the  perishable  products  of  the  industry.  A  survey  of  the  total-milk- 
supply  sources  for  Los  Angeles  for  the  year  ending  June  30,  1926,  is 
given  in  table  20.  Indications  point  to  a  relative  increase  in  the 
supply  of  milk  from  points  outside  of  Los  Angeles  County,  although 
there  has  been  a  marked  expansion  in  the  production  within  the 
county.  The  increases  outside  of  the  county  are  coming  from  two 
sections:  (1)  the  coast  counties  of  Ventura,  Santa  Barbara,  and  San 
Luis  Obispo,  and  (2)  the  interior  counties  of  Riverside  and  San  Ber 
nardino,  especially  the  latter.  With  the  exception  of  one  or  two 
short  intervals,  the  lower  San  Joaquin  Valley  and  the  Imperial  Valley 
have  not  been  factors  in  the  milk  supply  for  Los  Angeles.  It  seems 
reasonable  to  expect  that  the  latter  two  sections  may  also  be  factors 
in  the  future  milk  supply. 

TABLE  20 

Sources  of  the  Milk  Supply  of  the  City  of  Los  Angeles 

July  1,  1925-June  30,  1926 


County 

Dairies 

Cows 

Daily 

production, 

gallons 

Sold  in 
Los  Angeles 

Pasteurized  milk: 

633 

1 

86 

123 

4 

162 

1 

17 
11 

24,987 

20 

2,340 

3,451 

334 

6,226 

18 

1,179 

638 

92,031 

40 

6,145 

10,565 

1,120 

19,975 

45 

2,885 

1,825 

Total 

1,037 
188 

39,193 
7,302 

134,631 
19,178 

92,653 

Certified,  guaranteed,  Grade  A,  raw 

milk 

14,879 

Grand  total 

1,225 

46,495 

154,809 

107,532 

Source  of  data:   Estimates  by  William  Veit,  V.M.D.,  Chief  Veterinarian  and 
Chief  Milk  Inspector,  city  of  Los  Angeles. 


Compared  with  the  dairies  supplying  San  Francisco  with  milk, 
those  supplying  Los  Angeles  are  small  (compare  tables  20  and  21). 
On  March  1,  1925,  there  were  approximately  2,637  dairy-cow  owners 
in  Los  Angeles  County.  These  included,  besides  those  listed  in  table 
20,  a  large  number  supplying  areas  outside  the  city  limits  of  Los 
Angeles  with  milk.  With  31,298  cows  reported  to  the  assessor  on  the 
above  date  the  average  number  per  owner  approximated  12.  Omitting 
herds  of  from  1  to  12  cows,  the  average  number  per  owner  equaled 


60  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

45.  About  35  per  cent  of  the  cows  in  the  county  were  in  herds  of 
over  60.  The  question  of  the  future  of  dairies  operating  in  Los 
Angeles  and  elsewhere  upon  a  limited  area  is  constantly  raised  by 
producers  and  others  interested  in  the  dairy  industry.  Many  such 
dairies  or  factories  grow  little  or  no  feed,  being  milk  manufactories 
in  the  real  sense  of  the  word.  Prices  of  feeds,  competition  with  other 
crops  and  industries,  land  values  of  lands  used  for  other  than  agri- 
cultural purposes,  freight  and  express  rates,  climatic  conditions,  etc., 
will  have  a  bearing  upon  this  problem. 

Sweet  cream  is  furnished  chiefly  by  the  lower  San  Joaquin  Valley 
counties  of  Kings,  Tulare,  Fresno,  Kern,  and  the  coast  counties  of 
Santa  Barbara  and  San  Luis  Obispo.  Estimates  (1926)  place  the 
number  of  cows  producing  cream  for  the  Los  Angeles  market  at 
23,991,  located  in  801  dairies.  The  daily  production  of  cream  has 
been  estimated  at  5,461  gallons,  of  which  approximately  1,500  gallons 
are  used  as  table  cream,  the  balance  being  used  in  the  manufacture 
of  ice  cream.26 

When  necessary  the  cream  supply  of  the  city  can  be  expanded 
in  the  south  coast  counties,  and  the  San  Joaquin  and  Imperial  valleys. 

Sources  of  San  Francisco  Milk  and  Cream  Supply. — Practically 
all  of  the  milk  produced  for  consumption  in  San  Francisco  is  pro- 
duced within  a  radius  of  75  miles  of  the  city  with  one  exception, 
Monterey  County  (table  21).  While  it  is  probable  that  the  dairies 
in  close  proximity  to  San  Francisco  may  be  forced  into  other  locali- 
ties, the  abundance  of  land  suitable  for  dairying  in  several  of  the 
surrounding  counties  (table  21)  makes  the  problem  of  the  future  milk 
supply,  in  relation  to  location,  a  simple  one.  At  the  present  time  the 
dairies  supplying  San  Francisco  are  large,  the  162  averaging  133  cows 
(arithmetic  mean). 

The  sweet  cream  for  San  Francisco  is  produced  largely  in  Merced 
County  in  the  vicinity  of  Los  Banos  and  Gustinc. 

Sources  of  the  Milk  and  Cream  Supply  of  the  East  Bay  Cities  of 
Alameda  County. — In  1915  the  cities  of  Alameda  County  were  obtain- 
ing a  market-milk  supply  from  three  counties — Alameda,  Contra 
Costa,  and  Santa  Clara,27  with  small  quantities  of  milk  originating 
in  Solano  County.  In  1927  nine  different  counties — San  Joaquin, 
Alameda,  Contra  Costa,  Santa  Clara,  Solano,  Monterey,  Stanislaus, 
Napa,  and  Sonoma — were  supplying  these  same  cities,  the  greatest 
concentration  being  in  the  vicinity  of  Tracy,  San  Joaquin  County. 

26  Estimates  by  William  Veit,  V.M.D.,  Chief  Veterinarian  and  Chief  Milk 
Inspector,  City  of  Los  Angeles. 

2  7  Interview  with  Dr.  William  Wing,  Oakland  Board  of  Health,  April,  1927. 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY    INDUSTRY 


61 


TABLE  21 

Sources  of  the  Milk  Supply  of  San  Francisco  and  the  East  Bay  Cities 
of  Alameda  County,  March,  1927 


San  Francisco 

East  Bay  cities 

County 

Dairies 

Cows 

Dairies 

Cows 

5 

940 

46 
16 

4,398 

1,827 

28 
28 
5 
3 
11 
12 
65 
4 

3,494 

2,735 

395 

760 

1,720 

4,100 

6,643 

690 

1 
1 

289 

100 

66 

5,191 

24 
12 

1 
1 

1,331 

651 

85 

125 

Yolo 

1 

175 

Totals 

162 

21,652 

168 

13,997 

Sources  of  data:   San  Francisco:    San  Francisco  Board  of  Health;   East  Bay 
cities:  Oakland  Board  of  Health. 


The  sweet  cream  for  the  East  Bay  is  produced  mainly  in  the 
region  about  Tracy  (San  Joaquin  County),  and  Los  Banos  and  Gus- 
tine  (Merced  County). 

With  the  growth  of  population  has  come  an  increased  demand 
for  market  milk  and  cream  and  this  during  the  past  twelve  years  has 
come  from  regions  producing  an  abundance  of  feed.  Competition 
with  other  crops  and  other  uses  for  land  undoubtedly  have  given  some 
impetus  to  this  movement. 

Sources  of  the  Milk  and  Cream  Supply  of  Other  Cities  of  Cali- 
fornia.— Market  milk  for  the  City  of  San  Diego  is  produced  in  San 
Diego  County  and  market  cream  is  shipped  from  Imperial  Valley. 
The  milk  supply  of  Sacramento,  Stockton,  Fresno,  and  Bakersfield 
is  produced  in  the  vicinity  of  those  cities. 

Problems  in  Production  and  Distribution  of  the  Market  Milk 
Supply. — With  the  rapid  growth  of  the  cities  of  this  state  little  evi- 
dence has  been  shown  of  a  carefully  thought-out  plan  for  supplying 
market-milk  needs.  In  comparison  with  the  costs  of  producing  other 
dairy  products,  market  milk  is  expensive.  It  is  therefore  necessary, 
by  careful  planning,  to  reduce  periods  of  over-production  and  in- 
sufficiency to  a  minimum.  This  can  only  be  effectively  brought  about 
by  keeping  accurate  records  of  the  demands  of  the  consumer  over  a 
period  of  years.  While  such  data  will  not  solve  these  problems  to  a 
nicety,  they  will  nevertheless  give  the  dairymen  a  firmer  basis  upon 


62  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

which  to  plan.  With  this,  and  with  the  improvement  being  made  in 
the  statistical  service  of  the  Bureau  of  Dairy  Control,  future  total 
needs  for  the  various  cities  may  be  obtained  with  a  greater  degree  of 
accuracy  than  at  present. 

One  of  the  problems  which  looms  uppermost  at  present  is  the 
so-called  'surplus.'  A  'surplus'  is  a  necessity  in  the  market-milk  field 
because  of  the  varying  and  sudden  demands  of  consumers,  but  at 
times  the  difference  between  the  amount  of  milk  demanded  by  the 
trade  and  the  production  by  farmers  becomes  too  large. 

There  are  apparently  considerable  differences  in  demand  caused 
by  the  type  of  business  carried  on,  the  season,  and  the  local  conditions 
surrounding  a  city.  The  latter  two  are  of  especial  interest  to  pro- 
ducers. It  is  generally  conceded  that  the  concern  with  a  wholesale 
business  (supplying  milk  for  hotels,  restaurants,  stores,  etc.)  has  a 
far  greater  fluctuation  from  day  to  day  than  a  concern  engaged 
primarily  in  the  retail  business  (household  deliveries).  A  problem 
which  should  be  understood  by  the  consumer  as  well  as  by  those 
concerned  with  the  production  and  distribution  of  milk  is  that  caused 
by  the  increase  in  the  daily  fluctuation  in  demand  particularly  over 
week-end  periods.  During  the  last  few  years  there  has  been  a  lessen- 
ing in  the  demand  for  milk  over  the  week-end.  The  general  public 
should  realize  that  this  habit  if  continued  may  serve  to  make  the  retail 
price  of  milk  higher.  While  such  surplus  is  not  wasted  the  product 
manufactured  from  it  has  a  far  lower  value  per  pound  of  butterfat 
than  market  milk. 

General  opinion  among  distributors  in  Los  Angeles  and  vicinity 
seems  to  indicate  that  there  is  an  uniform  demand  throughout  the 
year  for  market  milk.  During  the  winter  season  the  demand  ^rom  the 
city  exclusive  of  the  beaches  is  high,  while  demand  from  the  latter 
section  is  relatively  low.  The  reverse  is  apparently  true  during  the 
summer  season.  In  addition,  the  tourist  influx  during  the  winter 
season  and  the  warmer  weather  of  the  summer  evidently  serve  to  keep 
the  demand  uniform. 

An  examination  of  the  sales  of  three  San  Francisco  concerns  for 
a  few  years  only  would  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  the  demand  during 
July  is  distinctly  lower  than  that  of  other  months,  with  June  the 
second  low  month.  This  conclusion  might  be  explained  by  the  fact 
that  large  numbers  of  San  Francisco's  people  spend  their  vacations 
away  from  the  city,  and  furthermore  that  the  month  of  July  is 
relatively  cool. 

Whether  the  East  Bay  cities  would  show  a  similar  variation  to 
that  of  San  Francisco  is  problematical,  as  the  author  has  been  able 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY 


63 


to  discover  little  or  no  evidence  upon  this  point.  Although  the  calcu- 
lation of  seasonal  demand  for  the  large  centers  might  prove  to  be 
profitable,  considerable  care  would  have  to  be  exercised  in  drawing 
conclusions  from  computations  made  for  smaller  centers.  Data,  for 
example,  are  available  for  San  Diego,  but  on  account  of  fleet  visits, 
race-track  meets  at  Tia  Juana,  conventions,  etc.,  the  results  give  little 
or  no  promise  of  presenting  helpful  suggestions  to  investigators. 

Production  of  Other  Dairy  Products. — California  is  among  the 
leading  states  in  the  manufacture  of  products  from  that  portion  of 
the  milk  containing  the  solids  not  fat.  In  1926  approximately  30.4 
per  cent  of  the  crude  milk  sugar,  21.1  per  cent  of  the  casein,  and 
28.7  per  cent  of  the  dry  skim  milk  of  the  United  States  were  manu- 
factured in  California  dairy-products  plants.  The  production  of  dry 
skim-milk  increased  fourfold  in  the  United  States  from  1914  to  192628 
while  that  of  California  has  grown  by  like  proportions  between 
1919-1920  and  1926  (table  22).  It  is  of  interest  to  note  that  pro- 
duction in  1921  and  1922  was  considerably  below  normal. 


TABLE  22 
Production  of  Dry  Milk  in  the  United  States,  1914  and  1916-1926 
California,  1918,  1921-1926 

(Thousand  pounds,  i.e.,  000  omitted) 


AND   IN 


United  States 

California 

Year* 

Dry  whole 
milk 

Dry  skim 
milk 

Total 

Dry  whole 
milk 

Dry  skim 
milk 

Total 

1914 

20,988 
18,587 
25,763 
30,357 
43,606 
52,227 
42,788 
46,216 
68,811 
77,106 
82,248 
102,486 

1916 

2,123 
3,139 
4,154 
8,661 

10,334 
4,242 
5,599 
6,560 
7,887 
8,931 

10,768 

16,463 
22,624 
26,202 
34,945 
41,893 
38,546 
40,617 
62,251 
69,219 
73,317 
91,718 

1917 

1918 

2,928 

1919 

1920 

5,260 
5,852 
•      8,026 
11,643 
14,605 
17,901 
23,096 

5,260 

1921 

49 
8 
160 
315 
768 
405 

5,901 

1922 

8,034 

1923 

11,803 

1924 

14,920 

1925 

18,668 

1926 

23,501 

*  United  States,  calendar  years.     California  1918  and  1921-1924  fiscal  years;  1925-1926  calendar  years. 

Sources  of  data:  United  States,  1916-1924,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Production  of 
dry  milk.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Yearbook,  1925:  p.  1082.  1926;  1925,  data  furnished 
author  by  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  California,  1918,  State  Dairy  Bur.  Twelfth  biennial 
report  of  the  State  Dairy  Bur.,  1917-1918:  p.  18.  1918;  1920,  Hoyt,  C.  F.,  Cali- 
fornia dairy  products,  1919-1920.  California  State  Dept.  Agr.,  Cir.  3:  p.  25. 
1921;  1921,  Frey,  J.  J.  Statistical  report  of  California  dairy  products,  1920-1921. 
California  State  Dept.  Agr.,  Special  Pub.  21:  p.  6.  1921;£&id.,  30:  p.  6.  1922; 
1923,  ibid.,  39:  p.  6.  1923:  1924,  ibid.,  50:  p.  6.  1924;  1925,  ibid.,  62:  p.  7. 
1926;   1926,  ibid.,  71:  p.  10,  1927. 

28  Equation  of  line  of  trend,  y  =  42,607,600  +  3,126,557.5  x,  origin  January  1, 
1921. 


64 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


CONSUMPTION    OF    DAIRY    PRODUCTS 

UTILIZATION  OF  MILK 

United  States. — During  1926  (table  23)  approximately  equal  parts 
of  the  milk  produced  in  the  United  States  were  utilized  for  household 
and  for  manufacturing  purposes  (fig.  14).  Since  1917  the  estimated 
amounts  of  milk  used  for  the  former  purpose  have  increased  49.1  per 
cent,  while  that  for  the  latter  purpose  increased  26.7  per  cent.  The 
increase  in  milk  utilized  has  been  estimated  at  37.8  per  cent. 

The  total  amount  of  whole  milk  utilized  in  butter  manufacture 
in  1926  was  25.3  per  cent  greater  than  that  reported  in  1917,  yet 
the  relative  amounts  of  milk  utilized  for  its  production  have  been 
gradually  lessening.  Proportionally  less  milk  was  used  in  cheese 
production  in  1926  than  in  1917,  although  the  estimated  amount  of 
milk  utilized  increased  12.6  per  cent.  Condensed  and  evaporated 
milk  production  accounted  for  28.0  per  cent  more  milk  in  1926  than 
in  1917,  yet  the  relative  amount  utilized  in  1926  was  slightly  less. 
Ice  cream  utilized  both  quantitatively  and  relatively  more  milk  in 
1926  than  in  1917,  the  increase  in  milk  used  being  54.6  per  cent. 


TABLE  23 
Milk  Utilization,  United  States,  1919-1926 

(Percentages  of  total  production  of  whole  milk) 


Purpose  for  which  milk  is  used 

1919 

1920 

1921 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925 

1926 

Butter: 

20.404 
15.973 
4.664 
5.344 
0.080 
0.013 
0.045 
0.005 

20.226 
15.810 
4.042 
4.400 
0.092 
0.007 
0.048 
0.006 
0.067 
3.987 

22.408 
13.807 
3.599 
3.703 
0.034 
0.002 
0.035 
0.005 
0.041 
3.396 

23.619 
12.797 
3.656 
3.489 
0.044 
0.002 
0.029 

23.963 
11.673 
3.636 
4.044 
0.048 
0.006 
0.031 

24.923 
10.988 
3.645 
3.708 
0.055 
0.017 
0.031 

24.541 
10.635 
3.841 
3.772 
0.061 
0.006 
0.034 
0.002 
0.196 
3.809 

25.245 

10.694 

3.539 

Condensed  and  evaporated  milk.... 

3.589 
0.71 

0.005 

0.038 

0.001 

0  098 
3.533 

0.136 
3.695 

0.138 
3.424 

0.142 

3.831 

3.698 

Total  whole  milk  for  manufac- 

50.456* 

42.882 

3.886 

2.776 

48.712f 

43.600 

4.688 

3.000 

47.030 

45.660 

4.310 

3.000 

47.267 

45.507 

4.226 

3.000 

47.232 

45.965 

3.803 

3.000 

46.929 

46.022 

4.049 

3.000 

46.897 

46.629 

3.474 

3.000 

47.020 

46.716 

3.264 

3.000 

Total 

100  000 

100  000 

100  000 

100  000 

100.000 

100  000 

100.000 

100.000 

*  Includes  0.097  per  cent  used  in  oleomargarine,      t  Includes  0.027  per  cent  used  in  oleomargarine. 
Source   of   data:    Information   to   author   from   U.   S.   Dept.   Agr.,    Bur.   Agr. 


Econ. 


MANUFACTURING 


BILLIONS    OF  POUNDS  OF  MILK 

0                          10                         20                        30                        40                        50                        60                        7C 

1921 
1922 
1923 
1924 
1925 
1926 

BUTTER 
■  Creamery  butter 

1921 

1922 

1923 
1924 

CHEESE 

1925 

1926 

1921 

1922 

1923 

CONDENSED  AND  EVAPORATED  MILK;  POWDERED  CREAM  AND 

1924 

milk;  MALTED  MILK,  STERILIZED  MILK, AND  MILK  CHOCOLATE 

1925 

1926 

1921 

■■ 

1922 

■■i 

1923 
1924 

™ 

ICE   CREAM 

1925 

■■■ 

1926 

^■i 

1921 
1922 
!923 
!924 
1925 
1926 

OTHER    USES 


BILLIONS   OF  POUNDS  OF  MILK 

0                         10                       20 

30                        40                        50                        60                        7 

1921 
1922 
1923 

1924 
1925 
1926 

SE 

i9ZI 

1922 

1923 
1924 

FEEDING  CALVES 

1925 

1926 

1921 

1922 

1923 
1924 

ESI 

'1  MATED  WASTE 

1925 

1926 

1921 

1922 
1923 
1924 
1925 
1926 

TOTAL  FOR 

^^ 

OTHER 

USES 

t— =1 fc- 

Fig.  14. — Use  of  milk  in  the  United  States,  1921-192:1.  The  quantity  of  milk 
produced  in  the  United  States  increased  about  29  per  cent  from  1921  to  1925. 
Of  the  total  amount  of  milk  produced,  about  47  per  cent  is  used  for  manufacturing 
dairy  products,  47  per  cent  for  the  household,  and  about  6  per  cent  for  feeding 
calves,  waste,  etc.  Data  furnished  author  by  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Bur.  Agr.  Econ. 
Original  figure  furnished  by  courtesy  of  Byron  Hunter,  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  1926 
data  added  by  author. 


66 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


California  (Butter-Fat). — Changes  in  the  utilization  of  butter-fat 
produced  in  California  since  1920  have  been  significant.  Especially 
marked  has  been  the  increase  in  the  relative  amounts  utilized  for 
market  milk,  market  cream,  ice  cream,  and  evaporated  milk.  In  a 
general  way  this  trend  corresponds  to  that  in  the  nation,  except  that 
the  last-mentioned  product  has  increased  relatively  more  rapidly  in 
California.  In  comparison  with  butter  and  cheese,  all  of  the  products 
mentioned  usually  bring  a  higher  absolute  price  for  the  milk  fat 
which  they  contain,  and  with  the  exception  of  evaporated  milk  are 
usually  produced  at  a  shorter  distance  from  the  centers  of  con- 
sumption. The  products  which  are  increasing  in  relative  importance 
in  this  state  are  those  in  which  the  solids  not  fat  are  either  completely 
or  partially  utilized.  If  the  human  population  of  California  continues 
to  increase  rapidly  and  if  the  present  trends  in  production  continue, 
it  seems  reasonable  to  expect  that  the  movement  which  is  discernible 
in  table  24  will  continue,  especially  with  respect  to  market  milk, 
market  cream,  and  ice  cream. 

TABLE  24 
Percentage  Utilization  of  Milk  Fat  Produced  in  California,  1920-1926 


1920 

1921 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925 

1926 

Butter 

60 
20 

6.3 

6.7 

4 

3 

59 

19.6 
8.7 
5.0 
3.7 
3.8 

57 
22.5 

7.5 

6.7 

3 

3+ 

54 
22+ 

6+ 

7 

3 

4+ 

52 

24+ 
8 
7- 
2 
4+ 

48* 
26+ 

9 

8 

1.9 

5 

46.1 
27.6 

Market  cream 

11.6 

8.3 

1.6 

4.7 

*  Data  is  'taken  as  it  appears  in  publications  used  as  sources. 
Sources  of  data: 

1920-1925,  Frey,  J.  J.     Statistical  report  of  California  dairy  products,  1925. 
California  State  Dept.  Agr.,  Special  Pub.  62:   p.  14.     1926. 

1926,  Frey,  J.  J.     Statistical  report  of  California  dairy  products,  1926.     Cali- 
fornia State  Dept.  Agr.,  Special  Pub.  71:  p.  20.     1927. 


APPAEENT  CONSUMPTION  OF  DAIEY  PEODUCTS 

United  States. — Statistics  of  consumption  of  dairy  products  over 
a  long  series  of  years  are  not  available.  Data  indicate  clearly  that 
the  total  per-capita  consumption  of  dairy  products  has  increased 
materially  during  the  ten  years  1917-1926  (fig.  15).  This  is  some- 
what remarkable  in  view  of  the  indication  that  the  total  apparent 
per-capita  consumption  of  food  in  the  United  States  in  terms  of 
calories  is  declining.29 

29  Lecture  by  Dr.  Alonzo  Taylor,  of  the  Food  Eesearcli  Institute,  Leland 
Stanford,  Jr.,  University,  given  at  the  University  of  California,  March  26,  1927. 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY 


67 


hh  CS 

^^ 

P 

O    3 

P  'd 

3     r+ 

Eg 

vq 

7c/ 

2 

J} 

to  B 

CB 
P 

M 
'I 

•     pr 

•<1 

1 

5 

S 

d 

to 

CD 

-t- 

d 

O 

CD 

►d 

~ 

P 
d 

CB 

3_ 

DC 

►d 

rs 

p  >d 

0) 

C 

CD 

p 

cd 

CD 

c+ 

CD 

P 

P 

P 

<rt" 

4 

P 

ce 

>d 

CD 

►d 

arq 

p 

p 

- 

a 

-> 

•d 

o 

p 

M 

CO 

Hs  CC 

- 

3 

c 

oo 

o 

5 

p 

o  ►d 

d 

p 

c+ 

S 

p* 

cd 

CD 

CO 

3 

5 

O 
P 

pj  o 

CD  T3 

o 

<^ 

P 

p+ 

o 

e+ 

0 

P 

Pj 

3 

n 

P 

OTQ 

o 

& 

CD 

0) 

^ 

c+- 

►d 
o 

CD 

O 

*>. 

«-J 

Pj 

3 

P 

co'd 

n 

CD 

►d 

CD 

c 

<x> 

H 

*"* 

p 

P 

O 
Mj 

w 

O 
CD 

3 

CO 
BE 

CD 

^ 

3 

d 

3 

O 

O 

CD 

P 

P 

r+ 

h-i 

CD 

w 

c 

3 

05 

CD 
P 

CC 

4 

P 

-i 

B9 

e+ 

CD 

►i 

CD 
P- 

h3 

to 

= 

CD 

p 

|_i 

! ! 

EJ' 

CO 

5T 

3 

1 — 1 

> 

" 

-: 

f-1 

°S 

U 

P 
co 

CO 

Ci 

CD 

|>0 

H 

>d 

p. 

Ci 

o 

CD 

P 

p 

"S 

-r 

H 

<"i 

P 

d 

9 

p 

R 

CD 

CD 

CO 

CD 

— 

CS 

P 

t- 

CD  >d 

CO 

►d 

rs 

CD 

- 

CD 

O 

CD 

- 

__ 

>B 

'""' 

<K5 

" 

P 

M 

H 

W 

^J 

U 

o 

l-i 

- 

IB 

— ' 

CC 

pj 

e+ 

2 

i; 

(t 

P 

OS 

P< 

Ui 


—        —        ro 
O        en        O 


-        u> 


3  5 

in  co[: 

P       2 


to 


10 


1 1 1 

1        1        1 

or 
2* 

^^^^^™ 

' 

o-  m 

z 

• 

? 

c 

3 

a 

to 

O 

m 
m 
to 

m 

■^^■i 

O 

O 

z 

~o 

tJP< 

O  2 
c  CO 

£° 

~2 
r 

^ 

z 

O 
o 

0) 

O 
m 

O 

m 

> 

68 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


A  careful  perusal  of  table  25  might  lead  one  to  believe  that  a  long- 
time trend  of  butter  consumption  would  fail  to  show  a  pronounced 
upward  tendency,  in  view  of  the  high  apparent  per-capita  con- 
sumption in  1889,  1899,  and  1909.  The  same  might  be  said  of  the 
consumption  of  cheese.  Although  milk  consumption  has  increased 
during  the  years  since  1917,  no  exact  data  exists  with  reference  to 
years  previous  to  the  war.  Most  of  the  increase  has  undoubtedly  been 
in  urban  areas,  as  the  records  of  receipts  at  certain  cities  show. 
There  can  be  but  little  doubt  of  the  continuous  upward  trend  in 
concentrated-milk  and  ice-cream  consumption.  There  is  no  ground, 
however,  for  believing  that  this  upward  trend  will  continue.  Habits 
of  diet  have  changed  rapidly  and  some  of  the  changes  may  have  an 
effect  on  the  consumption  of  certain  dairy  products.  Bread  con- 
sumption is  decreasing  and  butter  is  a  complementary  product. 
Cheese  consumption  during  the  past  nine  years  has  increased  more 
rapidly  than  that  of  any  of  the  other  dairy  products.  This  may 
perhaps  offset  the  decreasing  consumption  of  meat. 


TABLE  25 

Annual  Per-Capita  Consumption  of  Dairy  Products  in  the  United  States, 

1849-1926 


Year 

Milk 

Butter 

Cheese 

Condensed 

and  evaporated 

milk 

Ice  cream 

1849 

gallons 

42.4 

43.0 

43.0 

43  0 

49.0 

50.0 

53.0 

54.75 

54.75 

55  3 

pounds 
13.9 
15  1 
13.7 
15  8 
19.5 
19.9 
18  0 
17.0 
15  4 
14  6 
14.0 
14.8 
14.7 
16.1 
16.5 
17  0 
17.38 
17.39 
17.82 

pounds 
4  0 
3.2 
3.3 
2.1 
2.9 
3.7 
3.85* 
4.60* 
3.04 
2.89 
3.00 
3.50 
3  50 

3  50 
3.70 
3.90 

4  20 
4  26 
4  36 

pounds 

gallo7is 

1859 

1869    . 

1879 

1889 

1899 

1909 

1.04f 

1914 

1.68 

1916 

2.08 

1917 

10.49 
12.50 
12.30 
10.17 
11.40 
12.69 
13.25 
14.00 
14.87 
14.32 

2  07 

1918 

2.14 

1919 

2.49 

1920 

2.46 

1921 

2.28 

1922 

2.43 

1923 

2.68 

1924 

2.50 

1925 

2.80 

1926 

2.77 

*  Including  cottage  cheese,  not  included  for  other  years, 
t  For  the  year  1910. 

Source  of  data:  Furnished  to  author  by  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Bur.  Agr.  Econ. 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY 


69 


The  per-capita  consumption  of  milk  and  cream  increased  rapidly 
from  1920  to  1923,  but  the  increase  has  been  slight  since  the  latter 
date.  The  daily  consumption  of  milk  and  cream  per  capita  increased 
from  1.200  pints  in  1925  to  1.212  pints  in  1926,  or  1  per  cent.  The 
estimated  yearly  per-capita  consumption  for  1926  was  55.3  gallons 
per  person  as  compared  with  54.75  gallons  per  person  in  1925.  The 
estimated  daily  per-capita  consumption  of  milk  and  cream  on  farms 
and  in  rural  communities  was  estimated  at  1.47  pints  in  1926,  which 
is  the  same  figure  for  farm  consumption  as  has  prevailed  for  the 
past  four  years.  An  estimate  of  0.967  pints  of  milk  and  cream  con- 
sumed per  capita  daily  in  cities  in  1926,  is  based  upon  reports  received 
by  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics  from  373  cities  which  had 
a  population  of  approximately  39,000,000.  The  consumption  in  cities 
for  different  sections  of  the  country  for  1925  and  1926  is  shown  in 
table  26. 

TABLE  26 

Daily  Per-Capita  Consumption  of  Milk  and  Cream  in  Cities  in  Various 
Sections  of  the  United  States,  1925,  1926 


1925 

1926 

pints 
1.0504 
0.9388 
0.6184 
1.0114 

pints 
0.9889 

1 . 0389 

0.6113 

0.9767 

0.9510 

0.9670 

Source  of  data:  Information  from  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.,  Div.  of  Dairy  and  Poultry 
Products,  to  author. 


TABLE  27 

Estimates  of  Family  Consumption  of  Dairy  Products  and  Oleomargarine, 

United  States,  1918 


Article  and  unit 


United 

North 

South 

North 

South 

States 

Atlantic 

Atlantic 

Central 

Central 

337 

412 

155 

364 

177 

77 

95 

73 

48 

85 

66 

75 

56 

53 

60 

12 

12 

13 

12 

11 

16 

8 

9 

30 

16 

6 

4 

5 

11 

3 

Western 


Milk,  fresh  quart 

Milk,  evaporated  pound.. 

Butter,  pound 

Cheese,  pound 

Oleomargarine,  pound 

Nut  margarine,  pound... 


377 
92 


Source  of  data:  U.  S.  Dept.  Labor.     Betail  prices,  1890  to  1925.     U.  S.  Bur. 
Labor  Statistics,  Bul.  418:  p.  4.     1926. 


70  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

The  improvement  in  the  quality  of  milk,  butter,  and  cheese  has 
been  a  factor  in  increasing  the  consumption  of  these  products. 
Education  in  the  use  of  milk  has  played  a  considerable  part.  Indi- 
cations point  to  the  influence  of  prosperity  on  the  consumption  of 
dairy  products.  The  passage  of  the  Eighteenth  Amendment  has 
perhaps  caused  an  additional  supply  to  be  consumed.  If  dairy 
products  continue  on  their  present  high  level  of  consumption  or  raise 
this  level,  it  will  be  because  of  high  quality  and  comparatively 
moderate  price.  In  view  of  the  present  keen  competition  between 
foods  it  may  be  difficult  for  dairy  products  to  hold  the  present  level 
without  extensive  propaganda. 

Apparent  Consumption  of  Dairy  Products,  California. — Although 
production  statistics  for  California's  dairy  products  are  relatively 
complete,  interstate  shipments  interfere  with  the  possibility  of  obtain- 
ing reliable  figures  of  consumption  except  for  1925  and  1926. 
Approximately  100,026,686  pounds  of  butter  were  consumed  in  Cali- 
fornia during  1926  (22.34  pounds  per  capita),30  or  six  pounds  more 
than  that  of  the  United  States  as  a  whole.  Of  this,  74.1  per  cent  was 
manufactured  within  California.  Statistics  for  1925  indicate  that 
butter  consumption  in  that  year  was  22.61  pounds  per  capita — con- 
siderably greater  than  in  1926. 31 

The  per-capita  consumption  of  cheese  is  high  compared  with  that 
for  the  nation  (see  table  25).  According  to  estimates  of  the  Cali- 
fornia State  Department  of  Agriculture  for  1926,  it  was  6.45  pounds, 
and  for  1925,  6.73  pounds.  Over  71  per  cent  of  the  cheese  consumed 
in  the  state  in  1926  was  manufactured  in  other  states  and  in  foreign 
countries. 

An  almost  phenomenal  increase  in  the  production  and  the  con- 
sumption of  cottage  cheese  has  taken  place.  Conservative  estimates 
indicate  an  apparent  per-capita  consumption  of  2.46  pounds  in  1926, 
a  gain  of  approximately  two  pounds  in  the  seven  years  1920-1926, 
although  consumption  in  1926  was  approximately  the  same  as  that 
during  1925. 

The  consumption  of  ice  cream  has  increased  rapidly,  although  it 
appears  to  be  slightly  less  than  that  for  the  nation.  The  apparent 
per-capita  consumption  in  1926  was  2.69  gallons,  a  rise  of  almost 
33  per  cent  in  the  five  years  1920-1925.     Consumption  of  ice  cream 


30  Frey,  J.  J.  Statistical  report  of  California  dairy  products,  1926.  California 
Dept.  Agr.,  Special  Publication  71:  p.  14.     1927. 

3i  These  results  are  slightly  different  from  those  published  by  the  California 
State  Department  of  Agriculture,  Bureau  of  Dairy  Control,  as  different  estimates 
of  population  have  been  used  in  making  computations. 


BUL.  437]  ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF   THE  DAIRY   INDUSTRY  71 

in  California  has  been  as  follows:  1919-1920,  1.89  gallons;  1920-1921, 
2.11  gallons;  1921-1922,  1.90  gallons;  1922-1923,  2.09  gallons;  1923- 
1924,  2.22  gallons;  ]925,  2.05  gallons. 

The  market  milk  produced  per  capita  has  increased  from  17.46 
gallons  (150  pounds)  in  1919-1920  to  23.56  gallons  (200  pounds) 
in  1925 — an  increase  of  33%  per  cent.  Data  for  1926  indicate  a 
further  addition  to  24.1  gallons.  Market  milk  in  this  instance  does 
not  include  milk  consumed  by  farm  families  nor  is  account  taken  of 
cream  production.  It  should  not  be  inferred  that  this  is  the  amount 
of  milk  consumed  per  capita;  this  is  no  doubt  far  greater  than  the 
amount  of  market  milk  produced  per  capita.  A  comparison  between 
California  and  the  country  as  a  whole  cannot  be  made.  In  addition 
to  the  production  of  market  milk,  an  added  amount  of  market  cream 
has  been  made  available  within  the  state.  The  apparent  consumption 
per  capita  in  1926  was  1.32  gallons.  The  trend  of  market-cream 
consumption  has  been  upward. 

Statistics  of  the  consumption  of  condensed  and  evaporated  milk 
and  other  dairy  products  are  not  available,  although  indications  point 
to  a  high  per-capita  consumption  (table  27,  p.  69). 

That  the  per-capita  consumption  of  certain  dairy  products  is 
high  in  the  western  states  compared  with  other  sections  of  the  country 
is  borne  out  by  the  studies  of  the  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics  of  the 
United  States  Department  of  Labor  (table  27,  p.  69). 

Consumption  of  Dairy  Products  in  Various  Countries. — While 
but  little  information  exists  on  the  per-capita  consumption  of  milk 
in  various  countries,  there  are  evidently  considerable  differences. 
Sweden  and  Denmark  are  reported  to  have  a  consumption  of  1^2  pints 
a  day,3'2  while  that  of  the  United  States  is  approximately  1  pint.  In 
1923  the  per-capita  consumption  of  milk  in  England  and  Wales  was 
approximately  19  gallons  annually,  or  less  than  0.5  pints  daily.  In 
1926,  Germany  consumed  between  24  and  25  gallons  per  capita  yearly 
or  over  0.6  pints  daily.33  Data  for  butter  consumption  are  available 
for  a  few  countries  and  those  show  rather  wide  variations  (table  28), 
which  occur  on  account  of  the  relative  price  of  the  product,  dietary 
habits  of  the  people,  prosperity,  etc.  The  per-capita  consumption  of 
cheese  for  the  countries  listed  in  table  28,  evidences  even  wider  varia- 
tions than  that  of  butter.  While  food  habits  are  changing  rapidly, 
the  factors  causing  either  an  increased  or  a  decreased  consumption 

82  Imperial  Economic  Committee.  Report  on  marketing  and  preparing  for 
market  of  foodstuffs  produced  within  tlie  Empire,  pp.  1-147,  fig.  7.  His  Majesty's 
Stationery  Office,  London.     1926. 

33  Estimate  by  author  based  upon  data  in  International  Institute  Agr.  Inter- 
national Crop  Report  and  Agricultural  Statistics,  17th  year:  p.  489.     1926. 


72 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


in  other  countries  do  not  necessarily  prevail  in  the  United  States. 
The  argument  that  the  people  of  this  country  should  consume  as  much 
cheese  per  capita  as  those  of  Switzerland  or  an  amount  of  butter  equal 
to  that  consumed  per  capita  in  Canada  is  not  sound  unless  it  is 
founded  on  more  than  mere  comparisons  of  consumption. 

TABLE  28 

Apparent  Per-Capita  Consumption  of  Butter  and  Cheese  in 

Certain  Countries 


Butter 

Cheese 

Country 

Year 

Apparent 

per  capita 

consumption 

Country 

Year 

Apparent 

per  capita 

consumption 

1925 
1925 
1925 
1923 
1926 
1925 
1924 
1922 
1923 
1925 

pounds 
27.0 
26.6 
21.0 
18.6 
17.8 
16.3 
13.2 
11.1 
10.9 
8.4 

1923 
1923 
1923 
1925 
1924 
1926 
1924 

pounds 
23.3 

Canada 

13.5 

13.5 

Denmark 

United  Kingdom 

9.8 

United  States 

4.9 

4.4 

3.3 

France 

Sources  of  data:  Butter  in  Australia,  New  Zealand,  United  Kingdom,  and 
Switzerland  and  cheese  in  United  Kingdom  and  Canada:  Imperial  Economic  Com- 
mittee. Marketing  and  preparing  for  market  of  foodstuffs  produced  within  the 
Empire.  Fourth  report — dairy  produce.  147  pp.,  7  diag.  His  Majesty's  Station- 
ery Office,  London.  1926.  Butter,  cheese  in  United  States:  table  25  (p.  68). 
Butter  in  Sweden:  information  to  author  from  U.  S.  Dept.  Commerce.  Bemaining 
information  furnished  author  by  T.  R.  Pirtle,  Assistant  Marketing  Specialist, 
Bur.  Agr.  Econ.,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr. 


PRICES    AND    PURCHASING    POWER    OF    PRODUCTS    OF    THE 
DAIRY   INDUSTRY 

FARM  PRICES  OF  MILK  COWS  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  AND 

CALIFORNIA 

Reliability  of  Data. — The  value  per  head  of  milk  cows  varies  not 
only  with  condition,  quality,  age,  size,  and  weight,  but  also  with  actual 
or  estimated  production.  The  farm  prices  (tables  29  and  30)  are  more 
variable  than  those  of  beef  cattle  or  veal  calves  per  100  pounds  live 
weight.34 

Trends  in  Prices. — Prices  in  the  United  States  have  risen  less 
rapidly  since  the  pre-war  period  than  general  wholesale  prices, 
although  during  1926  and  the  first  few  months  of  1927.  a  decided 
advance  over  the  previous  five  years  is  indicated  (fig.  16).    Low  beef 

34  Sarle,  Charles  F.  Reliability  and  adequacy  of  farm-price  data.  U.  S.  Dept. 
Agr.,  Dept.  Bui.  1480:  1-65.     1927. 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY 


73 


and  until  recently  low  veal  prices  undoubtedly  have  had  an  influence 
on  prices  of  milk  cows.  Higher  prices  are  realized  in  California  and 
the  New  England  and  Middle  Atlantic  states.  These  are  the  result 
not  only  of  the  proportionately  large  amount  of  milk  used  for  direct 
consumption,  but  also  of  the  higher  average  production  per  cow.  No 
pronounced  seasonal  variation  in  prices  is  evident  in  this  state  and 
indications  do  not  point  to  a  direct  relationship  between  the  prices  of 
butter  and  alfalfa  hay,  or  barley  (fig.  17).  It  is  highly  probable 
that  the  price  of  milk  cows  is  affected  by  a  number  of  different  factors 
such  as  prices  of  feeds,  prevalence  of  disease,  prices  of  dairy  products 
(including  butterfat,  market  milk,  etc.),  veal,  and  beef,  together  with 
the  outlook  for  the  changes  in  the  future.  Milk-cow  prices  are  not 
subject  to  so  great  a  degree  of  fluctuations  as  those  for  alfalfa  hay, 
as  alfalfa  and  other  crops  are  influenced  more  by  variations  in  climatic 
conditions  over  which  man  has  little  control.  Comparisons  of  milk- 
cow  and  alfalfa-hay  prices  may  show  either  a  favorable  or  unfavorable 
relationship  for  the  purchaser  or  seller  of  the  former!  Oftentimes 
when  hay  prices  are  high  the  dairyman  is  a  purchaser  rather  than  a 
seller  of  hay,  but  the  opposite  often  holds  true. 


Per 
Head 

110 

\ 

1 

J 

X 

r* 

\ 

•\ 

Aj  J 

V-< 

A 

r 

f\ 

k  ft] 

r* 

•TO 

A" 

fV 

4>f 

J 

K 

/*>' 

\ 

t 

fr* 

,-J 

S 

1    T~y 

*"\ji 

V 

50 
40 
30 
20 
10 

o 

e 

\N< 

Uf 

Unft 

ed    S 

t-o+es 

>v 

J& 

• 

/9IO       II         /2         13         14       1915       16        17        18        19       /9Z0     Zl        ZZ      Z3       Z4-      I9Z5     Z<5        Z7 

Fig.  16. — Farm  prices  for  milk  cows  in  the  United  States  and  California, 
1910-1927.  Prices  paid  to  producers  for  milk  cows  have  generally  been  higher 
in  California  than  in  the  country  as  a  whole.  This  situation  might  be  expected 
on  account  of  the  higher  production  per  cow  in  California.  The  drop  in  prices 
in  the  state  during  1920,  1921,  and  1922,  was  not  as  pronounced  as  that  in  the 
country  as  a  whole  and  prices  during  the  six  years  1921-1926  have  remained  on 
higher  levels.  The  increased  production  of  dairy  cattle  in  the  state  has  undoubt- 
edly exerted  some  influence,  as  has  the  demand  for  cows  for  market-milk  purposes. 

Attention  is  called  to  the  rapidly  rising  prices  during  the  1910-1914  period, 
which  is  used  for  a  base  in  table  31.  Undue  emphasis  should  not  be  placed  on 
purchasing  power  as  used  in  table  31.     Data  from  table  29  and  38. 


74 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  29 

Milk  Cows:  Farm  Price  per  Head  on  the  15th  of  the  Month  in  the 

United  States,  1910-1927 


Year 

Jan. 

Feb. 

Mar. 

Apr. 

May 

June 

July 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

Aver- 
age 

1910 

$41.18 

$40.35 

$41.75 

$42.22 

$42.38 

$43.46 

$42.86 

$42.77 

$42.68 

$43.20 

$43.34 

$43.41 

$42.47 

1911 

44.70 

44.48 

45.42 

44.81 

44.54 

43.86 

42.44 

42.26 

42.22 

42.69 

42.70 

42.72 

43.57 

1912 

42.89 

43.40 

44.09 

45.14 

45.63 

45.84 

45.41 

46.11 

46.79 

47.30 

47.38 

48.62 

45.72 

1913 

49.51 

51.42 

54.02 

55.34 

54.80 

55.20 

54.80 

54.78 

55.78 

56.47 

57.71 

57.19 

54.75 

1914 

57.99 

59.09 

59.23 

59.60 

59.85 

59.82 

59  67 

60.72 

59.58 

59.53 

58.77 

58.23 

59.34 

1915 

58.47 

57.99 

58.00 

57.78 

58.29 

58.59 

60.31 

58.34 

58.38 

58.76 

57.35 

56.79 

58.25 

1916 

57.79 

57.99 

59.51 

60.68 

60.98 

61.63 

62.04 

61.32 

61.41 

62.19 

62.67 

63.18 

60.95 

1917 

63.92 

65.93 

68.46 

72.09 

72.78 

72.87 

72.81 

72.53 

73.93 

75.79 

75.00 

76.16 

71.86 

1918 

76.54 

78.36 

80.71 

82.45 

84.11 

84.74 

84.97 

84.06 

85.21 

85.41 

84.51 

85.78 

83.07 

1919 

86.10 

86.15 

88.15 

90.91 

93.43 

93.84 

94.51 

94.72 

93.42 

93.43 

93.27 

95.54 

91.96 

1920 

94.42 

95.27 

94.94 

95.36 

94.56 

94.56 

91.23 

90.50 

89.40 

85.90 

77.56 

70.42 

89.51 

1921 

66.82 

63.44 

65.37 

64.35 

62.63 

59.89 

56.55 

55.85 

54.33 

53.39 

53.28 

53.30 

59.10 

1922 

52.83 

53.54 

54.87 

54.46 

54.76 

54.87 

54.20 

52.67 

52.79 

52.86 

51.62 

53.21 

53.56 

1923 

54.01 

54.15 

55.29 

56.14 

55.91 

56.34 

56.22 

55.45 

56.13 

55.51 

55.39 

54.66 

55.43 

1924 

55.57 

55.49 

55.88 

55.92 

56.37 

56.45 

55.46 

55.74 

55.54 

54.30 

55.05 

54.00 

55.48 

1925 

54.81 

54.79 

56.19 

56.85 

57.88 

57.79 

57.95 

58.26 

58.68 

60.17 

60.69 

60.38 

57  87 

1926 

62.06 

63.41 

63.17 

65.65 

66.63 

66.74 

66.68 

65.37 

66  12 

$66.26 

$67.26 

$66.74 

$65.51 

1927 

$66.77 

$68.22 

$70.18 

$71.98 

$72.43 

$74.19 

$74.15 

$74.00 

$76.00 

Sources  of  data:  1910-1925,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Milk  cows:  Estimated  price 
per  head  received  by  producers.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Yearbook,  1925:  p.  1051. 
1926;  1926-1927,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Crops  and  Markets. 


TABLE  30 

Milk  Cows:  Farm  Prices  per  Head  on  the  15th  of  the  Month  in 

California,  1910-1927 


Year 

Jan. 

Feb. 

Mar. 

Apr. 

May 

June 

July 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

Aver- 
age 

1910 

$35.10 

$37.00 

$43.50 

$40.00 

$44.00 

$50.00 

$46.00 

$44.50 

$47.00 

$47.00 

$56.00 

$53.10 

$45.27 

1911 

56.10 

55.80 

54.30 

49.50 

53.00 

56.90 

55.50 

54.60 

51.00 

56.00 

54.00 

55.20 

54.33 

1912 

52.00 

56.00 

54.70 

57.00 

60.00 

55.00 

59.00 

57.00 

60.00 

58.90 

60.00 

62.00 

57.63 

1913 

59.00 

60.00 

62.00 

62.70 

59.60 

59.40 

55.90 

60.00 

64.00 

61.40 

64.10 

66.00 

61.18 

1914 

65.00 

66.90 

65.00 

66.70 

70.00 

74.70 

77.00 

70.00 

72.50 

75.00 

73.50 

74.20 

70.88 

1915 

76.00 

66.20 

74.80 

73.10 

74.00 

72.00 

67.00 

70.50 

69.20 

69.40 

70.00 

70.00 

70.93 

1916 

67.50 

67.70 

70.80 

68.00 

69.20 

67.40 

70.00 

68.70 

66.60 

66.80 

70.00 

66.00 

68.21 

1917 

69.80 

69.60 

72.90 

73.80 

75.00 

73.10 

73.00 

70.20 

72.40 

77.00 

78.40 

74.60 

73.31 

1918 

76.10 

70.30 

78.00 

76.50 

80.00 

80.00 

77.00 

83.00 

77.70 

80.00 

81.00 

85.00 

78.72 

1919 

86.00 

87.30 

92.50 

91.70 

94.00 

98.50 

100.00 

101.50 

98.20 

102.30 

102.00 

114.00 

97.33 

1920 

106  00 

107.00 

107.00 

104.30 

107.20 

109.30 

101.50 

101.00 

102  00 

102.00 

102.00 

100.00 

104.11 

1921 

97.00 

95  00 

95.00 

95.00 

90.00 

90.00 

87.00 

85.00 

86.00 

85.00 

85.00 

85.00 

89.58 

1922 

78.00 

80.00 

85.00 

86.00 

80.00 

80  00 

80.00 

80.00 

80.00 

80.00 

80.00 

75.00 

80.33 

1923 

75.00 

76.70 

80  00 

77.00 

79.00 

78  30 

78.60 

80.00 

79.00 

82.50 

82.50 

83.00 

79.30 

1924 

80.00 

82.00 

85.00 

84.60 

84.00 

82.00 

80.00 

76.00 

70.00 

67  00 

72.00 

70.00 

77.72 

1925 

72.00 

74.00 

76.00 

81.00 

80.70 

74.30 

78.30 

78.00 

78.00 

85.00 

80.00 

77.10 

77.87 

1926 

80.40 

86.40 

84.00 

82.00 

85.00 

90.00 

85.00 

82.00 

80.00 

$83.00 

$86.00 

$87.00 

$84.23 

1927 

$87.00 

$85.00 

$90.00 

$92.00 

$89.00 

$87.00 

$89.00 

$87.00 

$87.00 

Sources  of  data:  1910-1925,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  Prices  of  farm 
products  received  by  producers;  4,  Mountain  and  Pacific  states.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr., 
Statistical  Bui.  17:  p.  144.  1927.  1926,  1927,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Crops  and 
Markets. 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY    INDUSTRY 


75 


TABLE  31 

Relative  Prices  and  Purchasing  Power  of  Milk  Cows,  United  States 
and  California,  19]  0-192(5 


All 

Commodity 

Index 

2 

United  States 

California 

Year 

1 

Relative 

price 

3 

Purchasing 

power 

4 

Relative 

price 

5 

Purchasing 

power 

6 

1910 

1911 

1912 

1913 

1914 

1915 

1916 

1917 

1918 

102.7 
94.7 
100.9 
101.8 
99.9 
102.6 
129.0 
180.3 
197.7 
210.1 
230.2 
149.6 
151  5 
156.5 
152.4 
162.0 
154.0 

86.4 
88.6 
93.0 
111.4 
120.7 
118.5 
124.0 
146.1 
168.9 
187.0 
182.0 
120.2 
108.9 
112.7 
112.8 
117.7 
133.2 

84.1 
93.6 
92.2 
109.4 
120.8 
115.5 
96.1 
81.0 
85.4 
89.0 
79.1 
80.3 
71.9 
72.0 
74.0 
72.7 
86.5 

78.3 
93.9 
99.6 
105.7 
122.5 
122.7 
117.9 
126.7 
136.1 
168.2 
179.9 
154.8 
138.9 
137.1 
134.3 
134.6 
145.6 

76.2 
99.1 
98.7 
103.8 
122.6 
119.6 
91.4 
70.3 
68.8 

1919 

80.1 

1920 

78.2 

1921 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925 

1926 

103.5 

91.7 
87.6 
88.1 
83.1 
94  5 

Sources  of  data : 

Col.  2,  Bur.  Labor  Statistics,  All  commodity  index  1910-1914  =  100. 
Col.  3,  table  29.     1910-1914  =  100.     Col.  4,  col.  3  divided  by  col.  2. 
Col.  5,  table  30.     1910-1914  =  100.     Col.  6,  col.  5  divided  by  col.  2. 


TABLE  32 

Amount  of  Alfalfa  Hay  Required  to  Purchase  Dairy  Cow  in  California, 

1914-1927 

(Tons) 


Year 

Jan. 

Feb. 

Mar. 

Apr. 

May 

June 

July 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

Aver- 
age 

1914 

10.00 

8.81 

13.32 
10.28 

13.28 
9.57 

11.29 
8.81 

10.98 
8.65 

10.71 
8.46 

9.42 
7.00 

7.73 
6.27 

1915 

9.27 

7.70 

8.31 

8.70 

8.49 

1916 

6.62 

6.37 

6.32 

6.80 

8  44 

6.36 

6.36 

6.02 

5.84 

6.18 

5.83 

5.15 

6.36 

1917 

5.37 

4.63 

4.24 

3.65 

5.35 

5.22 

4.68 

4.74 

4.70 

4.64 

4  45 

3.73 

4.62 

1918 

3.46 

2.83 

3.36 

3.75 

4.60 

4.65 

4.38 

4.46 

4.00 

4  44 

4.55 

4.88 

4.11 

1919 
1920 

5  73 
4  14 

4  64 
3.93 

5.31 
3  54 

6.12 
4.01 

6.35 
5.05 

6.39 
4.97 

6.49 
4  34 

6.04 
4.76 

5.28 
5.10 

5.66 
5.10 

5.20 
5.10 

5.53 
5.27 

5.73 
4.61 

1921 

5.70 

7.31 

7.31 

10  55 

10.00 

10.00 

9.66 

9.44 

9.55 

9.45 

8.50 

6.74 

8.68 

1922 

6.00 

5  71 

6  07 

5.37 

6.66 

8.00 

8.00 

8.00 

7.27 

6.15 

5.33 

5.00 

6.46 

1923 

4.93 

4.56 

5.00 

5.13 

5.26 

5.59 

5.95 

6.66 

5.34 

5.89 

5.81 

5.32 

5.45 

1924 

4.88 

4.55 

4.72 

4.55 

4.57 

4.55 

4.49 

4.00 

3.89 

3.52 

3.67 

3.76 

4.26 

1925 

3.56 

3.59 

3.52 

4.13 

4  21 

5.38 

5.36 

5.91 

6.84 

6.85 

5.71 

5.50 

5.04 

1926 
1927 

5.66 
6.44 

5.14 
6.20 

5.83 
6.20 

5.94 
6.76 

7.08 
7.41 

7.15 
7.56 

7.39 

7.74 

7.45 
L'6.96 

6.61 
6.59 

6.58 

6  37 

6.54 

6.39 

Source  of  data:  Computations  by  author  based  upon  prices  reported  for  alfalfa 

hay  and  dairy  cattle  in  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.     Crops  and  Markets. 


76 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


"Ions 
J3 
IZ 
// 
/O 
9 


5 
4 

3      \=L 


_ 

J^AIfah 

ca 

[ 

\i 

L 

\i 

\ 

ving 

\A 

1 

r 

A 

-  IZ  -  ho/iTn    /'/O 
Average 

Ir  j 

i 

f 

A 

/ 

I 

\ 

(\ 

1 ' 

A 

-L 

A, 

r 

i 

\ 

Sl\ 

j 

r\^ 

J 

i\ 

r\ 

v 

r 

r 

^ 

y 

'w 

> 

t  * 

v 

I 

1  \ 

t 

' 

w 

J 

*— - 

f4= 

/5/4      /5K5       /<& 


/7 


/S 


/^     /ae£7    ^/ 


ZZ       Z3       Z4       J9Z5     Z6      Z7 


Fig.  17. — Price  ratio  of  dairy  cows  to  alfalfa  hay  in  California,  1914-1927. 
The  tons  of  alfalfa  hay  required  to  purchase  a  milk  cow  are  shown  in  the  above 
figure.  No  definite  relationship  between  the  two  prices  apepars  to  be  evident. 
Data  from  table  32. 


TABLE  33 

Kelative  Farm  Prices  of  Dairy  Products  and  General  Farm  Products* 
in  the  United  States,  1910-1927 

(On  5-year  base,  August,  1909-July,  1914  =  100) 


Relatives 

Year  and  month 

Relatives 

Year  and  month 

Dairy 
products 

General 

farm 
products 

Dairy 
products 

General 

farm 
products 

100 
97 
103 
100 
100 
98 
102 
125 
152 
173 
188 
148 
134 

103 
95 
99 
100 
102 
100 
117 
176 
200 
209 
205 
116 
124 

1923 

148 
134 
137 
136 
144 
143 
139 
140 
136 
132 
130 
129 
135 

135 

1911 

1924 

134 

1912 

1925 

147 

1913 

1926 

136 

1914 

1927— January 

126 

1915 

February 

127 

1916 

March 

126 

1917 

April 

125 

1918 

May 

126 

1919 

June 

130 

1920 

July 

130 

1921 

August 

132 

September 

140 

*  General  farm  products  includes  30  groups  of  the  more  important  farm  products  of  the  United 
States. 

Sources  of  data:  1910-March,  1927.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  Index 
numbers  of  farm  prices,  63  p.  1927.  April-September,  1927,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr. 
Crops  and  Markets. 


BUL.  437]  ECONOMIC   ASPECTS  OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY  77 


PRICES  OF  DAIRY  PRODUCTS 

United  States. — The  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics  of  the 
United  States  Department  of  Agriculture  has  constructed  an  index 
of  prices  for  dairy  products,  made  up  of  prices  of  milk  sold  by 
farmers  and  of  butter  which  is  given  a  weight  to  represent  butterfat 
and  cream  sold  by  farmers  (table  33).  Throughout  the  war  period, 
1914-1918,  and  until  1921,  the  relative  prices  of  dairy  products  lagged 
behind  general  farm  and  all-commodity  prices.  Since  1921  the 
tendency  has  been  for  the  relative  prices  of  dairy  products  to  remain 
above  those  of  farm  prices,  although  below  the  wholesale  level  of 
prices.  Butter  prices  appear  in  a  far  more  favorable  light  than  prices 
paid  to  producers  for  milk  in  the  United  States,  e.g.,  in  May,  1927, 
the  farm  price  of  butter  as  a  per  cent  of  the  pre-war  average  (August, 
1909-July,  1914)  was  165,  while  that  of  milk  was  125. 


BUTTERFAT  PRICES 

Importance  of  Butterfat. — From  the  standpoint  of  value  in 
exchange,  butterfat  is  the  important  constituent  in  milk.  As  a  basis 
for  setting  the  price  of  milk  products,  about  95  per  cent  is  credited 
to  butterfat  and  5  per  cent  to  milk  solids,  not  fat.35  Hitherto  the 
other  constituents  of  milk  have  not  been  of  particular  interest  to  any 
but  research  workers  and  certain  manufacturers  of  dairy  products. 
Scientific  work  has  brought  about  the  discovery  of  vitamines  and 
other  constituents  of  milk  not  previously  known.  New  uses  for 
the  constituents  of  milk  other  than  milk  fat  have  been  found  and  their 
values  in  use  are  reflected  in  the  demand  and  consequently  in  the 
price.  For  example,  Beach  and  Davis36  discovered  a  new  use  for 
lactose  or  milk  sugar  as  a  practical  specific  for  coccidiosis  in  chickens. 
The  general  public  is  becoming  aware  of  the  fact  that  mere  fat  con- 
tent or  "richness"  of  milk  is  only  one  item  to  be  considered  in  its 
purchase. 

California  Prices. — Through  the  cooperation  of  creameries  in  the 
state  it  has  been  possible  to  construct  a  series  of  prices  paid  to  pro- 
ducers of  butterfat  for  churning  purposes  (fig.  18).  There  was  a 
tendency  for  the  prices  of  wholesale  commodities  to  rise  more  rapidly 


s5  Lecture  by  C.  E.  Gray,  Golden  State  Milk  Products  Company,  University 
Farm,  Davis,  1926. 

36  Beach,  J.  R.,  and  D.  E.  Davis.  The  influence  of  feeding  lactose  or  dry 
skim-milk  on  artificial  infection  of  chickens  with  Eimeria  avium.  Hilgardia,  1: 
167-181.     1925. 


78 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


than  the  price  of  butterfat  during  the  years  1914-1917.  Since  1917 
the  tendency  has  been  for  butterfat  prices  to  gain  on  general  whole- 
sale prices.  The  comparisons  between  the  relative  wholesale  prices 
of  one  commodity  and  those  of  wholesale  commodities  in  general  are 
often  termed  "purchasing  power."  The  term  is  somewhat  mislead- 
ing, as  the  dairyman  selling  butterfat  does  not  purchase  all  of  the 
commodities  used  in  making  up  a  series  of  wholesale-price  relatives. 


TABLE  34 

Estimated  Prices  Eeceived  by  Producers  for  Butterfat  in  the  United  States 

on  the  15th  of  the  Month,  1924-1927 

(Cents  per  pound) 


Geographical  unit 


Jan.     Feb.     Mar.    Apr.     May    June    July    Aug.     Sept.    Oct.     Nov.    Dec. 


1924 

North  Atlantic  states 

North  Central  states 

44  0 
36.6 

43.0 
36.6 

43.0 
37  0 

43.0 

41  1 

1925 


North  Atlantic  states.. 
North  Central  states.. 
South  Atlantic  states.. 
South  Central  states  . 

Western  states 

California 

United  States 


40 


47.0 
37.9 


46.5 
41.8 
39.7 
37.6 
41.6 
46.0 
41.5 


45.1 
40.3 
40.5 
37.2 
41.5 
45.0 
40  5 


45.0 
39.6 
40.1 
37.0 
40.0 
45.0 
40.3 


43.5 
40.4 
36.9 
36.3 
41.1 
46.0 
39.9 


45.5 
40.2 
38.1 
36.5 
43.9 
51.0 
40.5 


43.8 
41.5 
39.6 
35.9 
47.5 
53.0 
41.3 


46.9 
42.5 
38.1 
37.6 
49.0 
56.0 
42.6 


51.8 
47.6 
42.0 
40.8 
52.3 
59.0 
47.1 


52  0 
48.1 
43.4 
41.2 
55  4 
64  0 
47.8 


52.9 
47.9 
42.4 
41.8 
52.5 
59  0 
47.6 


1926 


North  Atlantic  states.. 
North  Central  states  . 
South  Atlantic  states. 
South  Central  states  . 

Western  states 

California 

United  States 


51.9 

49.8 

48.6 

45  4 

45.1 

43.6 

44.7 

46.1 

45.1 

45.9 

51.8 

44.3 

42.8 

42.6 

40.2 

38.5 

39.4 

38.4 

38.0 

40.5 

43.2 

45.5 

45  0 

41.9 

40.6 

40.2 

39.4 

38.8 

36.5 

36.9 

39.7 

39.1 

41.2 

41.0 

38.9 

38.8 

36.4 

35.3 

35.2 

.34.3 

33.8 

35.6 

37.6 

39.1 

47.5 

44.6 

45  4 

42  0 

40.4 

41.4 

40.2 

40.8 

43.1 

44.8 

44.6 

53.0 

48.0 

49.0 

44  0 

43.0 

47.0 

45.0 

45.0 

47.0 

49.0 

46.0 

45.2 

43.1 

42.9 

40.4 

39.1 

39.3 

38.6 

38.6 

40  5 

42.4 

44.8 

51.1 
49.3 
43.3 
41.4 
45.2 
46.0 
47.9 


1927 


North  Atlantic  states.. 
North  Central  states  . 
South  Atlantic  states. 
South  Central  states  . 

Western  states 

California 

United  States 


52  1 
47.9 
42.9 
41.2 
47.9 
51.0 


51.7 
48.1 
43.4 
40.8 
47  4 
50.0 
46.8 


52.4 
49.3 
44.2 
42.4 
48.6 
51.0 
48.0 


50.8 
48.6 
45  3 
42.0 
44.7 
46.0 
47.1 


50.6 
44.0 
41.1 
38.6 
42.8 
46.0 
43.6 


46.4 
41.5 
38.2 
35.3 
41.2 
45.0 
40.8 


46.4 
40.7 
38.8 
35.0 
41.0 
45.0 
40.3 


44.4 
39.9 
37.1 
34.3 
40.9 
45.0 
39.4 


42.2 
40.3 
35.8 
44.0 
48  0 
41.6 


Source  of  data:  1924,  1925,  1926,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Monthly  Supplements  to 
Crops  and  Markets.  1927  current  data,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Crops  and  Markets, 
published  monthly. 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY 


79 


Furthermore,  dairymen  even  in  the  same  state  may  purchase  widely 
different  commodities.  The  farmer  purchases  many  commodities 
which  are  not  included  in  the  so-called  index  of  wholesale  prices. 
The  price  of  many  of  these  commodities  has  actually  been  lowered  by 
mass  production.  Oftentimes  prices  averaged  during  a  base  period 
vary  greatly.  Comparisons  between  prices  of  a  specific  commodity 
and  general  wholesale  prices  should  be  used  only  in  a  general  way. 
To  correctly  gauge  purchasing  power,  the  volume  of  production 
should  be  taken  into  account.  This  latter  information  is  not  available. 
Attention  is  called,  however,  to  the  probable  greater  uniformity  in 
the  production  of  a  product  such  as  butterfat  than  in  the  production 
of  most  agricultural  crops.  With  these  and  perhaps  other  limitations 
it  can  be  said  that  the  unit  price  of  butterfat  in  the  state  has  been 
normal  during  the  five  years,  1923-1927,  considering  as  normal 
the  wholesale  prices  of  commodities  listed  by  the  Bureau  of  Labor 
Statistics. 


Per- 

1           1           1 

75 

to 

60 

as 

50 
«5 
AC 
35 
30 
25 
SO 
15 
K> 
5 
0 

,Bu 

f-rerf 

ca+ 

Price 

s 

/I 

A 

\  ( 

\ 

/ 

\J\ 

I 

tf 

1 

t 

kj 

T 

iz- 

A 

Moni-h     f 
/eraga} 

lovint 

7 

w 

V 

V 

V 

V 

r 

V 

V 

/a        1915        16         17         18  19       /9ZO      Zl  ZZ        Z3        Z4       I9Z5      Z& 


Fig.  18. — Prices  paid  to  the  producer  for  butterfat  in  churning  cream  in  Cali- 
fornia, 1910-1926.  Prices  paid  f.o.b.  dairy  plants  for  butterfat  in  churning  cream 
did  not  begin  to  rise  until  1916.  Although  the  rise  av;is  rapid,  it  did  not  equal 
that  of  general  commodities.  The  fall  in  butterfat  prices  was  less  pronounced 
than  that  of  general  commodities  in  1921.  Prices  in  1923  and  1925  were  prac- 
tically normal,  with  1926  slightly  below.  The  first  part  of  1927  gives  evidence  of 
another  normal  year.     Data  from  table  35. 


80 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  35 

BUTTERFAT  PRICES    FOR   CHURNING    CREAM,    CALIFORNIA,    1910-1927 
(Cents  per  pound) 


Year 

Jan. 

Feb. 

Mar. 

Apr. 

May 

June 

July 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

II 

8 

sir 
.>^ 

-So 

«2 

1910... 

38.1 

36.5 

32.3 

29.5 

30.8 

32.2 

34.4 

36.3 

36.5 

38.8 

39.5 

38.3 

34.79 

104.0 

1911... 

36.8 

34.3 

28.3 

24.5 

25.5 

25.2 

25.3 

28.0 

29.5 

33.8 

35.5 

38.0 

29.85 

89.3 

1912... 

41.0 

39.0 

35.0 

29.9 

29.0 

31.8 

32.6 

36.5 

38.7 

40.0 

40.5 

39.5 

35.59 

106.4 

1913... 

41.5 

41.0 

41.0 

33.0 

31.3 

31.9 

33.9 

36.5 

39.5 

37.2 

37.8 

35.7 

36.47 

109.1 

1914... 

33.5 

30  0 

26.4 

26.3 

28.0 

28.5 

28.5 

31.3 

33.5 

34.9 

37.5 

33.7 

30.50 

91.2 

1915... 

31.8 

31.3 

27.0 

26.0 

27.1 

29.0 

30.0 

31.0 

31.0 

31.0 

32.0 

31.5 

29.59 

88.5 

1916... 

32.3 

34.5 

31.8 

30.8 

28.9 

29.0 

29.9 

30.9 

35.3 

38.0 

40.0 

39.9 

32.99 

98.6 

1917... 

42.7 

43.0 

40.0 

42*5 

41.3 

42.1 

45.6 

49.8 

51.1 

53.1 

49.8 

53.8 

45.61 

136.4 

1918  ... 

57.0 

55  0 

52.0 

43.5 

45.0 

49.0 

56.0 

57.3 

64.3 

69.5 

67.1 

71.0 

55.95 

167.3 

1919... 

65.8 

60.0 

66.0 

62.9 

65.8 

65.7 

64.0 

65.0 

72.0 

74.0 

75.1 

75.6 

67.17 

200  8 

1920... 

73.4 

72.9 

69.3 

65.3 

62.0 

63.8 

69.0 

71.0 

75.9 

67.5 

63.5 

58.0 

67.50 

201.8 

1921... 

50.0 

54.0 

43.2 

39.1 

35.9 

38.6 

45.5 

49.3 

50.2 

53.5 

54.0 

48.0 

45.99 

137.5 

1922... 

42.0 

45.0 

38.4 

36.5 

40  0 

43.5 

47.0 

46.0 

54.0 

57.2 

54.0 

56.0 

45.65 

136.5 

1923.... 

56.9 

53.6 

50.0 

48.9 

50  5 

53  0 

50.0 

54  0 

56.5 

57.0 

58.0 

57.0 

53.35 

159.5 

1924... 

56.8 

54.7 

52.0 

41.7 

40.5 

44.5 

44.2 

45.7 

44.0 

44.8 

44.0 

48.4 

46.63 

139.4 

1925... 

49.5 

49.3 

49.0 

45.8 

46.7 

51.5 

54.4 

57.0 

59.5 

63.5 

64.0 

56  0 

53.05 

158.6 

1926. ... 

49.0 

51.0 

47.4 

46  3 

46.0 

46.0 

45.7 

48.2 

49.0 

49.8 

49.3 

51.0 

48.00 

143.5 

1927.... 

52.5 

52.3 

50  0 

47.7 

46.5 

48.0 

48.0 

Source   of   data:    Information  furnished   to   author   by   creameries   in   various 
parts  of  California. 


Comparisons  of  Butterfat  Prices. — The  Bureau  of  Agricultural 
Economics  of  the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture,  quotes 
an  estimated  price  received  by  producers  of  butterfat.  Comparisons 
made  since  September,  1924,  indicate  that  prices  in  California  have 
averaged  higher  than  those  of  the  other  western  states,  while  the  latter 
as  a  group  have  ranked  next  to  the  north  Atlantic  states.  During 
March,  April,  and  May,  the  differential  is  apparently  less  than  during 
the  other  months  of  the  year,  because  of  the  larger  production  in  the 
state  during  these  months  (see  fig.  12,  p.  50). 

This  relatively  favorable  position  of  California  has  been  brought 
about  by  a  local  market  for  a  large  proportion  of  the  dairy  products. 
The  increasing  proportion  of  the  milk  production  which  is  being 
utilized  for  high-priced  products,  together  with  the  facilities  for  the 
manufacture  of  various  by-products,  have  been  contributing  factors 
in  favor  of  this  differential. 


BUL.  437]  ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY  81 


BUTTER  PRICES 

Farm  Butter  in  the  United  States. — The  farm  prices  received  for 
butter  constitute  one  of  the  few  series  of  butter  prices  for  the  entire 
country.  The  quantity  of  farm  butter  has  been  decreasing  steadily, 
as  creamery  butter  has  increased,  and  the  quality  has  materially 
improved.  A  much  larger  proportion  of  farm  butter  is  sold  at  the 
retail  price  level  than  was  the  case  ten  or  fifteen  years  ago.36  A 
comparison  with  the  wholesale  commodity  index  will  be  of  interest 
although  no  definite  conclusions  should  be  drawn.  Except  for  the 
three  years  1916-1918,  butter  prices  have  been  steadier  than  the  prices 
of  wholesale  commodities.  During  the  four  years,  1923-1926,  the 
deviation  from  100  per  cent  in  the  so-called  purchasing  power  has 
been  slight.  Although  butter  is  only  one  product  of  the  dairy 
industry,  it  undoubtedly  gives  a  better  picture  of  general  price  trends 
than  some  of  the  other  dairy  products  such  as  market  milk,  market 
cream,  etc.,  which  are  greatly  influenced  by  local  conditions. 

During  the  war  period,  1914-1920,  there  was  a  tendency  for  butter 
prices  to  increase  more  slowly  than  general  farm  prices  but  since 
1921  the  relative  prices  for  butter  have  been  more  favorable.  Pre- 
liminary data  for  California  farm  prices  are  now  being  assembled. 
It  can  be  shown  fairly  accurately  that  eggs  have  not  kept  so  close 
to  100  per  cent  in  purchasing  power  as  butter.38 

Farm  Butter  in  California. — This  product  is  unimportant  in  Cali- 
fornia, but  since  the  only  price  quoted  over  a  long  series  of  years  for 
the  entire  country  is  on  farm  butter,  those  prices  obtainable  in  this 
state  may  be  of  interest  and  value.  It  seems  reasonable  to  expect  that 
the  production  might  follow  creamery  butter  in  the  state  and  the 
weighted  average  price  per  year  is  based  upon  this  stipulation.  Dur- 
ing the  period  1910-1926  the  actual  prices  received  for  farm  butter 
in  California  have  been  higher  than  those  obtained  in  the  United 
States  as  a  whole,  although  the  relatives  have  not  been  quite  so  high. 
This  latter  situation  has  come  about  on  account  of  the  probability  that 
there  has  been  little  difference  in  the  method  of  disposing  of  farm 
butter  in  this  state  during  the  past  few  years. 

Comparisons  between  the  prices  received  for  farm  butter  in  various 
sections  are  of  somewhat  doubtful  value  owing  to  Avide  variations  in 
quality. 


so  Sarle,  Charles  F.  Reliability  and  adequacy  of  farm-price  data.  U.  S.  Dept. 
Agr.,  Dept.  Bui.  1480:  1-65.     1927. 

38  Voorhies,  E.  C.  The  California  poultry  industry:  A  statistical  study.  Cali- 
fornia Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  413:  1-172.     1926. 


82 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  36 

Prices  and  Purchasing  Power  of  Butter,  Farm  Prices,  United  States, 

1910-1926 


Year 

Butter 

prices 

(cents  per 

pound) 

1 

Butter- 
price 
relative 
1910-14  =  100 

2 

All- 
commodity 

index 
1910-14  =  100 

3 

Purchasing 
power  of 

butter 

4 

Weighted 
average 

price 

(cents  per 

pound 

5 

Butter- 
price 
relative 
based  on  5 

6 

Purchasing 

power 
based  on 
3  and  6 

7 

1910 

25.9 
23.3 
26.2 
27.0 
25.5 
26.0 
28.5 
36.3 
43.7 
50.9 
54.6 
38.4 
35.8 
41.0 
40.0 
41.1 
41.6 

101.2 
91.0 
102.3 
105.5 
99.6 
101.6 
111  3 
141.8 
170.7 
198.8 
213.3 
150.0 
139.8 
160.2 
156.3 
160  6 
162.6 

102.8 
94.7 
100.9 
101.8 
99.9 
102.6 
129.1 
180.4 
197.9 
210.2 
230.3 
148.8 
151.5 
156.5 
152.4 
161.6 
154  0 

98.4 
96.1 
101.4 
103.6 
99.7 
99.0 
86.2 
78.6 
86.3 
94.6 
92.6 
100.8 
92.3 
102.4 
102.6 
99.4 
105.6 

25.5 
22.9 
25.7 
26.7 
25.1 
25.7 
28.0 
35.9 
42.7 
50.3 
54.3 
37.0 
35.3 
40.4 
39.4 
40.7 
41.1 

101.2 
90.9 
102.0 
106.0 
99.6 
102.0 
111.1 
142.5 
169.5 
199.6 
215.5 
146.8 
140.1 
160.3 
156.4 
161.5 
163 .2 

98  4 

1911 

96  0 

1912 

101  1 

1913 

104.1 

1914 

99.7 

1915  ....: 

99.4 

1916 

86.0 

1917 

79.0 

1918 

85.6 

1919 

95.0 

1920 

93.6 

1921 

98.7 

1922 

92.5 

1923  .. 

102.4 

1924 

102.6 

1925 

99.9 

1926 

106.0 

Sources  of  data: 

Col.  1,  average  of  monthly  prices  given  in  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Butter:  estimated 
price  per  pound  received  by  producers,  in  the  United  States,  1910-1925.  Year- 
book, 1925:  p.  1092.  1926.     1926-1927,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.     Crops  and  Markets. 

Col.  2,  computations  by  author. 

'Col.  3,  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics  all  commodity  index. 

Col.  4,  col.  2  divided  by  col.  3. 

Col.  5,  weighted  average  prices. 

Col.  6,  butter  price  relative  based  upon  col.  5. 

Col.  7,  col.  6  divided  by  col.  3. 

Weights  used  in  computing  average  yearly  prices  of  butter  for  the  United 
States  were  based  upon  the  production  of  creamery  butter,  1922.  These  weights 
are:  Jan.  6,  Feb.  7,  Mar.  7,  Apr.  7,  May  11,  June  13,  July  12,  Aug.  10,  Sept.  8, 
Oct.  7,  Nov.  6,  Dec.  6. 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY 


83 


TABLE  37 

Monthly  Pricks   Received  ky  Producers  for  Butter  on  the  Farm 

in  California,  1910-1927* 

(Cents  per  pound) 


Year 

Jan. 

Feb. 

Mar. 

Apr. 

May 

June 

July 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

Average 

1910 

34 
34 
35 
34 
34 
32 
32 
36 
50 
60 
65 
54 
46 
48 
51 
49 
47 
51 

32 
32 
35 
35 
31 
30 
32 
39 
50 
56 
64 
48 
43 
47 
51 
46 
51 
48 

31 
30 
33 
34 
28 
28 
30 
38 
50 
55 
64 
46 
41 
46 
52 
46 
48 
48 

29 
27 
31 
32 
27 
26 
28 
36 
46 
55 
62 
42 
38 
44 
45 
49 
44 
45 

28 
26 
30 
30 
26 
26 
28 
36 
44 
56 
60 
38 
38 
45 
43 
46 
43 
45 

28 
26 
29 
29 
26 
26 
28 
37 
44 
57 
60 
37 
40 
46 
44 
47 
44 
44 

28 
26 
30 
30 
28 
28 
28 
40 
48 
57 
58 
38 
42 
46 
43 
52 
43 
45 

30 

27 
31 
31 
28 
29 
28 
42 
51 
56 
60 
43 
42 
46 
46 
53 
46 
44 

32 
29 
32 
34 
30 
30 
30 
44 
53 
58 
63 
46 
44 
46 
46 
55 
47 
47 

34 
30 
34 
35 
32 
30 
32 
46 
58 
62 
64 
47 
48 
49 
46 
58 
46 

35 
32 
35 
36 
34 
30 
34 
47 
61 
66 
64 
48 
50 
52 
48 
62 
48 

36 
34 
35 
36 
34 
32 
36 
48 
62 
66 
62 
50 
50 
50 
50 
57 
49 

31 

1911 

29 

1912 

33 

1913 

33 

1914 

30 

1915 

29 

1916 

31 

1917 

41 

1918 

51 

1919  

59 

1920 

62 

1921 

1922 

45 
44 

1923 

47 

1924 

47 

1925 

52 

1926 

46 

1927 

*  Prices  are  for  first  of  month  from  1910-1923.     Prices  are  for  fifteenth  of  month  from  1924-1926. 

Sources  of  data:  1910-1925,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  Prices  of  farm 
products  received  by  producers  in  mountain  and  Pacific  states.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr., 
Statistical  Bul.  17  :  p.  145.  1927.  1926-1927,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Crops  and 
Markets. 

TABLE  38 
Prices  and  Purchasing  Power  of  Butter  on  the  Farm,  California, 

1910-1926 


Year 


1910.. 
1911.. 

1912.. 

1913. 

1914. 

1915. 

1916 

11117 

1918. 

[919 

1920 

1921. 

1922 

1923 . 

1924 

1925.. 

1926 


Butter  price 
(cents  per  pound) 

1 

Butter-price 

relative 

1910-14  =  100  = 

31  cents 

2 

All-commodity 

index 

1910-14  =  100 

3 

Purchasing  power 
of  butter 

4 

31 

100.0 

102.8 

97.3 

29 

93.6 

94.7 

98.8 

33 

106.5 

100.9 

105.6 

33 

106  5 

101.8 

104.6 

30 

96.8 

99.9 

96.9 

29 

93.6 

102.6 

91.2 

31 

100.0 

129.1 

77.5 

41 

132.3 

180.4 

73.3 

51 

164.5 

197.9 

83.1 

59 

190  3 

210.2 

90  5 

62 

196  8 

230.3 

96.9 

45 

145  2 

148.8 

97  6 

44 

141  9 

151.5 

93.7 

47 

151.6 

156  5 

96  9 

47 

151.6 

152  4 

99.5 

52 

167.7 

161  6 

103.8 

46 

149  4 

154  0 

97.0 

Sources  of  data: 

Col.  1,  table  37,  p.  129  (unweighted  average). 

Col.  3,  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  all  commodity  index,  1910-1914  =  100. 

Col.  4,  col.  2  divided  by  col.  3. 


84 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


/860  65      70      75    80     85    90      95  /900   05     10      15      20     Z5    30 


Fig.  19. — Wholesale  prices  and  purchasing  power  of  butter  in  San  Francisco, 
1860-1927.  Actual  wholesale  prices  of  butter  at  San  Francisco  give  evidence  of 
two  long-time  swings,  1865-1895  and  1895-1926.  Making  calculations  upon  a 
1910-1914  base,  butter  shows  a  generally  favorable  purchasing  power  until  1913. 
Since  1917  the  purchasing  power  has  been  rising  rapidly.  During  the  entire 
(ireat  War  period,  prices  were  out  of  line  with  those  of  general  commodities. 
The  base  period  1910-1914  occurred  during  a  period  of  fairly  constant  prices, 
1907-1914.     Data  from  table  41,  p.  89. 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY 


85 


Wholesale  Prices  of  Butter. — Wholesale  butter  prices  have  been 
quoted  in  San  Francisco  since  1860 ;  a  summary  of  the  average  yearly 
prices  is  given  in  table  41  (fig.  19).  Price  is  not  the  only  factor  which 
should  be  taken  into  consideration  in  connection  with  a  product.  The 
purchasing  power  of  butter  is  perhaps  of  more  general  significance 
to  both  the  producer  and  consumer  than  is  the  mere  money  price. 
The  wholesale  price  of  butter  is  of  greater  significance  to  the  con- 
sumer and  producer  than  that  of  most  other  wholesale  commodities, 


TABLE  39 
Net  Monthly  Wholesale  Prices  of  Butter  in  San  Francisco,  1910-1927 

(Cents  per  pound) 


Year 

Jan. 

Feb. 

Mar. 

Apr. 

May 

June 

July 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

Aver- 
age 

1910 
1911 
1912 
1913 

35.87 
32.12 
35.00 
35.00 

33.50 
29.87 
34.50 
34.25 

29.40 
26.70 
31.87 
35.50 

26.25 
21.75 
26.62 
28.25 

29.62 
22.75 
25.60 
27.20 

28.20 
21.80 
27.62 
27.75 

29.50 
23.25 
27.62 
28.60 

32.00 
25.70 
31.40 
32.50 

32.20 
26.75 
33.37 
34.87 

34.20 
30.75 
34.10 
32.50 

35.50 
31.37 
33.10 
33.00 

35.30 
33.75 
34.00 
31.10 

31.79 
27.21 
31.23 
31.71 

1914 

29.75 

27.00 

22.75 

23.20 

24.00 

24.00 

24.37 

28.00 

30.50 

30.50 

31.50 

29.87 

27.12 

1915 

27.75 

28.62 

24.00 

23.00 

23.37 

24.75 

26.50 

27.37 

27.00 

27.00 

28.00 

27.50 

26.24 

1916 

27.75 

31.25 

27.70 

26.50 

24.75 

24.90 

26.00 

27.30 

30.62 

33.00 

34.60 

34.50 

29.07 

1917 

35.87 

38.00 

35.70 

37.75 

35.60 

35.75 

38.75 

42.40 

43.87 

45.50 

42.60 

47.12 

39.91 

1918 

48.50 

47.25 

44.25 

36.50 

38.80 

42.37 

47.00 

48.30 

53.60 

59.25 

57.10 

60.75 

48.64 

1919 

55.40 

50.25 

54.80 

53.60 

56.00 

52.50 

53.70 

53.60 

59.60 

62.30 

63.40 

63.60 

56.56 

1920 

61.00 

60.80 

58.40 

55.30 

51.70 

53.70 

56.40 

58.30 

63.80 

56.70 

53.60 

47.60 

56.44 

1921 

42.20 

45.40 

37.10 

33.70 

30.60 

33.30 

38.20 

41.40 

43.20 

45.90 

46.20 

40.30 

39.79 

1922 

35.70 

40.30 

32.80 

31.40 

33.30 

35.80 

38.10 

38.80 

45.20 

48.90 

44.30 

47.40 

39.33 

1923 

47.50 

45.20 

41.40 

40.50 

41.90 

43.80 

41.50 

45.10 

47.60 

47.20 

47.40 

47.70 

44.73 

1924 

47.50 

45.10 

44.20 

36.40 

35.40 

37.80 

37.30 

39.00 

37.00 

37.10 

37.80 

41.30 

39.66 

1925 

43.70 

42.30 

42.50 

39.90 

39.90 

44.00 

48.30 

50.00 

51.70 

54.00 

54.30 

48.70 

46.61 

1926 
1927 

43.80 
47.20 

45.80 
47.70 

42.40 
45.60 

40.40 
42.00 

40.10 
41.20 

40.50 
41.80 

41.70 
41.60 

43.50 
44.30 

44.30 
46.70 

44.60 

44.50 

47.30 

43.16 

Sources  of  data:  Monthly  quotations  computed  by  author  on  basis  of  the  aver- 
age (arithmetic  mean)  of  Thursday  quotations,  for  each  month.  For  the  years 
1918-1925  all  quotations  were  discounted  before  being  averaged.  Current  quota- 
tions are  published  daily  by  the  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  (p.  178). 

Prices  quoted  by  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics  during  a  portion  of 
the  1918-1925  period  indicate  that  the  exchange  quotations  were  slightly  low. 
The  Bureau  quotations  were: 


Aver- 

Year 

Jan. 

Feb. 

Mar. 

Apr. 

May 

June 

July 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

age 

1918 

59 

58 

62 

1919 

56 

49 

56 

56 

56 

54 

54 

55 

60 

63 

64 

65 

57 

1920 

62 

62 

59 

56 

53 

54 

57 

59 

64 

58 

53 

48 

57 

1921 

42 

46 

38 

34 

31 

34 

39 

42 

44 

46 

46 

41 

40 

1922 

36 

40 

33 

32 

35 

38 

39 

39 

46 

49 

45 

47 

40 

1923 

48 

46 

42 

41 

42 

44 

42 

45 

48 

47 

48 

48 

45 

1924 

47 

46 

44 

38 

37 

40 

39 

40 

39 

39 

39 

43 

41 

1925 

44 

42 

43 

40 

40 

44 

47 

49 

52 

54 

54 

49 

46 

86 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


because  both  the  price  paid  to  the  producer  for  butterfat  and  the 
price  paid  by  the  consumer  for  butter  are  closely  correlated  to  the 
wholesale  price  of  butter.  The  trend  of  prices  from  1865  to  1895 
was  downward,  yet  at  the  same  time  the  purchasing  power  was,  with 
the  exception  of  five  years,  above  100  per  cent.  At  the  beginning 
of  the  World  War  butter  prices  took  an  upward  turn,  yet  the  increase 
did  not  keep  pace  with  general  commodity  prices.  Since  1918  whole- 
sale butter  prices  i-n  San  Francisco  have  continued  to  show  a  steady 
rise  when  compared  with  general  commodity  prices.  Los  Angeles 
prices  since  1910  show  the  same  general  movement  as  those  at  San 
Francisco  (fig.  20). 


60 
40 


-Pun 

-has 

ng     j 

?ow& 

'/- 

V*^ 

'Z't-ict 

» 

Pur- 
chasing 
Poisor- 

130 
IZO 
I/O 
/OO 

90 

80 

70 


/9IO     II       IZ       13       14       15       16       17      /8      19     ZO     Zi       ZZ     Z3     Z4-      Z5 


Fig.  20. — Wholesale  prices  and  purchasing  power  of  butter  in  Los  Angeles, 
1910-1926.  The  disparity  between  the  wholesale  prices  of  butter  at  Los  Angeles 
and  general  commodity  prices  in  the  United  States  started  in  1914.  Since  1917 
the  general  trend  of  the  purchasing  power  has  been  upward.  Data  from  table  44 
(p.  92). 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC    ASPECTS   OP    THE    DAIRY    INDUSTRY 


87 


TABLE  40 

Relative  Monthly  Wholesale  Prices  of  Butter  in  San  Francisco,  1910-1927 

Months  1910-1914  =  100,  e.g.,  January,  1910-1914  =  100,  etc. 


Year 

Jan. 

Feb. 

Mar. 

Apr. 

May 

June 

July 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

Aver- 
age 

1910 

106.9 

105.3 

100  5 

104.1 

115.4 

109.0 

110  6 

107.0 

102  1 

105  5 

107.9 

107.6 

106.6 

1911 

95.7 

93.9 

91.3 

86.3 

88.1 

84.3 

87.2 

85.9 

84.8 

94.9 

95.4 

102.9 

91  3 

1912 

104  3 

108.4 

109.0 

105.6 

99.1 

106.8 

103.6 

104  9 

107  1 

105.2 

100.6 

103.7 

104.8 

1913 

104  3 

107.6 

121  4 

112.1 

105  3 

107.3 

107.2 

108.6 

110.6 

100.3 

100.3 

94.8 

106  4 

1914 

88.7 

84.9 

77.8 

92.0 

92.9 

92  8 

91.4 

93.6 

96.7 

94.1 

95.8 

91.1 

91.0 

1915 

82.7 

89.9 

82.1 

91.2 

90.5 

95.7 

99.4 

91.5 

85.6 

83.3 

85.1 

83.9 

88.0 

1916 

82.7 

98.2 

94.7 

105.1 

95.8 

96  3 

97.5 

91.2 

97.1 

101.8 

105  2 

105  2 

97.5 

1917 

106  9 

119.4 

122  1 

149.7 

137.8 

138.2 

145.3 

141  7 

139.1 

140.4 

129.5 

143.7 

133.9 

1918 

144.6 

148.5 

151.3 

144.8 

150.2 

163.8 

176.2 

161.4 

169.9 

182.8 

173.6 

185.2 

163.2 

1919 

165.1 

157.9 

187.4 

212.6 

216.8 

202.9 

201.4 

179.1 

189.0 

192.2 

192.8 

193.9 

186.4 

1920 

181.8 

191.1 

199.7 

219.5 

200.2 

207.6 

211.5 

194.9 

202.3 

174.9 

163.0 

145  1 

189.3 

1921 

125.8 

142.7 

127.2 

133.7 

118.5 

128.7 

143.2 

138.4 

137.0 

141.6 

140.5 

122.9 

133.5 

1922 

106.4 

126.7 

112.2 

124.6 

128.9 

138.4 

142.9 

129.7 

143.3 

150.9 

134.7 

144.5 

131.9 

1923 

141.6 

142.0 

141.6 

160.7 

162.2 

169.3 

155.6 

150.7 

150.9 

145.6 

144.1 

145.4 

150.1 

1924 

141.6 

141.8 

151.2 

144.4 

137.1 

146.1 

139.9 

130.4 

117.3 

114.5 

114.9 

125.9 

133.0 

1925 

130.3 

132.9 

145.4 

158.3 

154.5 

170.1 

181.1 

167.1 

163.9 

166.6 

165.1 

148.5 

156.4 

1926 

130.6 

143.9 

145.0 

160.3 

155.2 

156.6 

156.4 

145.4 

140.5 

137.6 

135.3 

144.2 

144.8 

1927 

140.7 

149.9 

156.0 

166.6 

159.5 

161.6 

156.0 

148.1 

148.1 

Source  of  data:   Computations  by  the  author  based  upon  table  39. 


Butter  prices  for  the  same  grade  of  product  in  different  sections 
move  with  considerable  similarity,  as  for  example  on  the  New  York, 
Chicago,  Los  Angeles,  and  San  Francisco  markets  (fig.  21).  Until 
quite  recently — 1925 — the  average  yearly  wholesale  price  of  butter 
was  lower  at  San  Francisco  than  at  the  other  cities  mentioned.  With 
the  increasing  demands  of  the  state  and  a  consequent  dependence  on 
outside  supplies,  wholesale  prices  within  the  state  will  be  perhaps 
higher  than  in  sections  producing  a  surplus.  With  the  dairy  develop- 
ment in  the  other  western  states  there  probably  will  be  even  more 
uniformity  between  California  and  the  Middle  West,  owing  to  the  ease 
with  which  many  of  the  western  states  can  place  their  products  in 
either  California  or  the  middle  western  states.  During  the  four 
years,  1923-1926,  there  have  not  been  any  marked  differences  (except 
for  short  inter\Tals)  between  the  wholesale  prices  at  Chicago  and 
San  Francisco  (or  Los  Angeles).  In  California  there  is  a  tendency 
for  comparatively  lower  prices  to  prevail  during  the  first  three  or 
four  mouths  of  the  year  on  account  of  the  earlier  season. 


CENTS 
PER  LB. 

50 

45 

40 

35 

30 
55 

50 

45 

40 

35 

30 
55 

50 

45 

40 

35 


1921 

_ err 

^1 

\ 

^"A 

-.— 

,^*" 

\\       ^New  York 

^^^ 

Son  Francisco-"^ 

^ 

jf""      V/ 

icago 

T^ 

^-5^}— — — — 

1922 

5c?/7  Franc 

/ 

/Ven/  Koz-A 

1 

/jx* 

.  Chicago 

.^" 

-*C|,"-i-..  iJs»»s=Cj 

/y 

»*" 



^ 

1 

1923 

i^ — *^ 

*"•■«•. 

|**5 

N 

e»  tt/rt 

.^'\~"^~^. 
•*"*  ^-»^"*^ 

s+ 

i 

So/ 

Francisc 

-  "• "             Chicago 

1                   1 

| 

|      _j 

1925 

L      - 

.J---i— - 

VX 

*N 

eiv  Ko/-/r 

3(7/7  rranciSCO    ~T^ 

^ 

*  »« 

"*•-•«* 



—      / 

1^ 

* — 

tws« -— 

J_ „ L_    , , 

*■     '"""       "" 

I ■                        . 

1 
1926 

■ 

<^ 



n  Fran 

zj'sco-^ 

--^ 

<• 

r** 

^^S 

^>s- 

A/ew  y&/- 

<•, 

>.^ 

•^i...-- 

Cht'cc 

^° 

50 

45 

40 

35 

30 
55 

50 
45 
40 
35 

30 

JAN.        FEB.        MAR..       APR,.        MAY       JUNE      JULY        AUG  5EPT      OCT         NOV       DEC 

Fig.  21. — Prices  of  92-score  butter  at  New  York,  Chicago,  and  San  Francisco, 
1921-^-1926.  During  March  and  April  San  Francisco  prices  are  usually  below 
those  of  Chicago  and  New  York.  When  the  flush  season  of  production  comes  on 
in  the  dairy  belt,  Chicago  and  New  York  prices  usually  drop  below  the  San  Fran- 
cisco price.  Data  from  Yearbooks  of  the  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  (Coefficient  of  corre- 
lation, r=  + 0.7158  for  correlation  between  monthly  prices,  New  York  and  San 
Francisco,  January,  1901-June,  1926.  Correlation  between  Chicago  and  San 
Francisco  butter  prices  gave  approximately  the  same  results.) 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OP   THE   DAIRY    INDUSTRY 


89 


TABLE  41 

Butter:  Actual  and  Eelative  Wholesale  Prices,  Purchasing  Power, 
San  Francisco,  1860-1926 


Actual  average  price 

(cents  per  pound) 

2 

Relative 

price 

3 

45.7 

153.3 

44  2 

148.3 

49.6 

166.4 

46.0 

154.3 

50.1 

168.1 

62.8 

210.7 

48.8 

163.7 

43.3 

145.3 

46.3 

155.3 

49.9 

167.4 

41.8 

140.2 

38.9 

130.5 

40.8 

136.9 

41.8 

140.2 

38.9 

130.5 

39.7 

133.2 

35.8 

120.1 

38.6 

129.5 

33.3 

111.7 

30.3 

101.6 

28.5 

95.6 

34.4 

115.4 

34.7 

116.4 

31.1 

104.3 

30.4 

102.0 

28.1 

94.3 

25.8 

86.6 

29.0 

97.3 

33.9 

113.7 

24.3 

81.5 

25.3 

84.9 

28.9 

96.9 

26.3 

88.2 

25.8 

86.5 

23.5 

78.8 

19.4 

65.1 

20.8 

69.8 

21.4 

71.8 

23.5 

78.8 

23.3 

78.2 

22.8 

76.5 

21.6 

72.5 

25.7 

86.2 

27.6 

92.6 

23.7 

79.5 

24.8 

83.2 

26.1 

87.6 

30.4 

102.0 

26.8 

89.9 

30.7 

103.0 

All-commodity 

index 

4 


Purchasing 

power 

5 


90 
105 
133 
170 
194 
171 
154 
143 
137 
127 
122 
124 
123 
119 
114 
106 
99 
91 


172.2 
164.8 
158.5 
116.0 
98.9 
108.6 
95.7 
94.4 
108.6 
122.2 
110.4 
107.0 
110.4 
114.0 
109.7 
116.8 
113.3 
130.8 
122.7 
118.1 
99.6 
122.8 
120.0 
109.8 
114.6 
113.6 
105.6 
117.2 
135.4 
97.0 
102.3 
118.2 
114.6 
109.5 
112.6 
91.7 
102.6 
105.6 
111.0 
101.6 
92.2 
89.5 
100.2 
105.2 
90.3 
94.6 
96.3 
106.3 
97.7 
104.0 


90 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  41—(Con1initr<l) 


Year 
1 

Actual  average 

price 

2 

Relative 

price 

3 

All-commodity 

index 

4 

Purchasing 

power 

5 

1910 

31.8 
27.2 
31.2 
31.7 
27.1 
26.2 
29.1 
39.9 
48.6 
56.6 
56.4 
39.8 
39.3 
44.7 
39.7 
46.6 
43.2 

106.6 
91.3 
104.8 
106.4 
91.0 
88.0 
97.5 
133.9 
163.2 
186.4 
189.3 
133.5 
131.9 
150.1 
133.0 
156.4 
144.9 

103 
95 
101 
102 
100 
103 
130 
181 
198 
210 
231 
150 
152 
157 
153 
162 
154 

103.5 

11 

96.1 

12 

103.8 

13 

104.3 

14 

91.0 

1915 

85.4 

16 

75.0 

17 

74.0 

18 

82.4 

19 

88.8 

1920 

82.0 

21 

89.0 

22 

86.8 

23 

95.6 

24 

86.9 

1925 

96.6 

26 

94.1 

Sources  of  data: 

1860-1879,  computations  by  author  based  upon  weekly  quotations  appearing 
in  the  California  Farmer  and  Journal  of  Useful  Sciences. 

1880-1926,  the  Pacific  Eural  Press,  market  page. 

Col.  3,  1910-1914=:100  =  29.814  cents. 

Col.  4,  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics  index  of  wholesale  commodity  prices  based 
upon  calendar  years  1910-1914. 

Col.  5,  col.  3  divided  by  col.  4. 


Reliability  of  the  Data  on  Butter  Prices. — One  of  the  problems  in 
the  past  and  at  present  is  the  obtaining  of  actual  wholesale  prices  at 
which  butter  is  sold.  In  the  earlier  periods  of  the  San  Francisco 
butter  market  a  group  of  wholesalers  met  to  establish  prices.  This 
system  gave  way  to  regularly  organized  exchanges.  In  San  Francisco 
the  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics  with  the  aid  of  the  exchange 
and  street  sales  attempts  to  report  daily  what  in  the  judgment  of  its 
representatives  is  believed  to  be  an  average  of  transactions  for  the  day. 
The  Los  Angeles  price  is  set  daily  by  the  Produce  Exchange  of  Los 
Angeles.  The  quotations  listed  in  tables  39  and  42  (pp.  85  and  91) 
represent  the  approximate  price  at  which  butter  was  exchanged. 
Returns  by  creameries  were  and  still  are  based  upon  these  quotations 
in  the  western  part  of  the  United  States.  The  basis  for  the  publica- 
tion of  a  daily  quotation  is  becoming  increasingly  difficult  on  account 
of  the  relatively  small  amounts  of  butter  being  exchanged  in  a  whole- 
sale way. 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY    INDUSTRY 


91 


TABLE  42 
Wholesale  Prices  of  Butter  in  Los  Angeles,  1910-1927 

(Cents  per  pound) 


Year 

Jan. 

Feb. 

Mar. 

Apr. 

May 

June 

July 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

Average 

1910 

38.2 
34.6 
37.2 
36.5 
29  0 
27.5 
29.1 
37.2 
50.8 
57.2 
60.7 
44.9 
37.6 
48.7 
48.9 
46.0 
44.5 
48.2 

36.9 
33.0 
37.0 
35.7 
26.5 
27.0 
32.1 
38.7 
48.5 
53.3 
61.9 
47  8 
43.2 
46.1 
47.3 
46.3 
46.5 
48.5 

31.5 
26.5 
31.6 
36.5 
21.7 
23.2 
27.7 
33.8 
45.5 
57.5 
57.2 
38.9 
34.6 
42.9 
45.5 
45.9 
43.5 
45.7 

27.2 
20.9 
26.2 
28.5 
23.0 
22.0 
27.0 
36.2 
38.5 
53.8 
52.3 
35.7 
33.2 
42.8 
38.0 
42.7 
42.0 
43.5 

29.0 

23 .3 
25.7 
27.7 
24.5 
23.0 
25.2 
35.2 
39.6 
56.8 
50.3 
33.8 
35.8 
44.0 
37.8 
42.8 
41.8 
42.0 

30.0 
22.8 
27.7 
28.4 
25.0 
24.7 
26.3 
37.5 
42.6 
55.6 
54.0 
35.1 
39.5 
44.9 
42.0 
46.5 
42.0 
42.0 

31.5 
22.9 
29.0 
30.2 
24.9 
26.0 
26.0 
390 
49.0 
50.5 
58.3 
41.8 
41.3 
42.8 
41.2 
48.7 
41.5 
42.8 

33.5 
25.5 
31.4 
31.7 
25.9 
26.0 
27.8 
42.8 
49.8 
50.4 
60.0 
44.1 
41.7 
46.6 
42.8 
40.0 
43.5 
44.2 

33.3 
26.5 
33.9 
35.0 
27.7 
26.0 
32.0 
42.9 
53.3 
56.0 
65.6 
45.1 
47.3 
48.7 
42.3 
51.3 
46.0 
47.3 

34.3 
29.5 
35.4 
33.4 
30.5 
26.0 
33.3 
46.2 
59.8 
58.6 
59.0 
47.8 
49.6 
49.1 
41.6 
56.2 
46.0 

35.2 
32.4 
36.0 
33.5 
33.5 
27.0 
35  2 
42.4 
58.1 
59.6 
55.7 
47.0 
46.3 
49.3 
41.5 
56.5 
45.5 

35.9 
33.5 
35.0 
30.3 
29.6 
27.6 
35.3 
46.5 
61.5 
59.8 
51.1 
43.1 
49  6 
48.9 
44.0 
50.4 
48.4 

33.0 

1911 

27.6 

1912 

32.2 

1913 

32.2 

1914 

26.8 

1915 

25.5 

1916 

29.7 

1917 

39.9 

1918 

49.8 

1919 

55.8 

1920 

57.2 

1921 

42.1 

1922 

41.6 

1923 

45.4 

1924 

42.7 

1925 

48.6 

1926    . 

44.3 

1927 

Source  of  data:  Arithmetic  mean  of  Wednesday  quotations  at  Los  Angeles. 
All  quotations  are  net,  discounts  from  June  9,  1920  to  April  29,  1924,  having  been 
subtracted.  Current  quotations  are  published  daily  by  the  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Bur. 
Agr.  Econ. 


TABLE  43 
Eelative  Monthly  Wholesale  Prices  of  Butter  in  Los  Angeles,  1910-1927 

Months  1910-1914  =  100,  e.g.,  January,  1910-1914  =  100,  etc. 


Year 

Jan. 

Feb. 

Mar. 

Apr. 

May 

June 

July 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

Aver- 
age 

1910 

108.8 

109.1 

106.6 

108.1 

111.4 

112.2 

113.7 

113.2 

106.5 

105.2 

103.2 

109.3 

108.7 

1911 

98.6 

97.6 

89.7 

83.1 

89.5 

85.3 

82.7 

86.2 

84.7 

90.4 

95.0 

101.9 

90.9 

1912 

106.0 

109.4 

106.9 

104.1 

98.7 

103.6 

104.7 

106.1 

108.4 

108.5 

105.5 

106.5 

106.1 

1913 

104.0 

105.6 

123.5 

113.3 

106.4 

106.2 

109.0 

107.1 

111.9 

102.4 

98.2 

92.2 

106.1 

1914 

82.6 

78.4 

73.4 

91.4 

94.1 

93.5 

89.9 

87.5 

88.6 

93.5 

98.2 

90.1 

88.3 

1915 

78.4 

79.8 

78.5 

87.4 

88.3 

92.4 

93.9 

87.9 

83.1 

79.7 

79.1 

84.0 

84.0 

1916 

82.9 

94.9 

93.7 

107.3 

96.8 

98.4 

93.9 

94.0 

102.3 

102.1 

103.2 

107.4 

97.8 

1917 

106  0 

114.4 

114.4 

143.9 

135.2 

140.2 

140.8 

144.6 

137.1 

141.6 

124  3 

141.5 

131  4 

1918 

144  7 

143.4 

153.9 

153.0 

152.1 

159.3 

176.9 

168.3 

170.4 

183.3 

170.3 

187.2 

164  0 

1919 

163.0 

157.6 

104.5 

213.8 

218.1 

207.9 

182.3. 

170.3 

179.0 

179.7 

174.7 

182.0 

183.8 

1920 

172.9 

183.0 

193.5 

207.9 

193.2 

202.0 

210.5 

202.7 

209.7 

180.9 

163.2 

155.5 

188.4 

1921 

127.9 

141.3 

131  6 

141.9 

129.8 

131.3 

150.9 

149.0 

144.2 

146.5 

137.8 

131.2 

138.7 

1922 

107.1 

127.7 

117.1 

132.0 

137.5 

147  7 

149.1 

140.9 

151.2 

152.1 

135.7 

150.9 

137.0 

1923 

138.8 

136.3 

145.1 

170.1 

169.0 

167.9 

154.5 

157.4 

155.7 

119.9 

144.5 

148.8 

149.5 

1924 

139.3 

139.9 

153.9 

151  0 

145.2 

157.1 

148.7 

144.6 

135.2 

127.5 

121  6 

133.9 

140.6 

1925 

131.1 

136.9 

155.3 

169.7 

164.4 

173.9 

175.8 

168.9 

164  0 

172.3 

165.6 

153.4 

160.1 

1926 

126.8 

137.5 

147.2 

166.9 

160.5 

157.1 

149.8 

147.0 

147.0 

141.0 

133.4 

147.3 

145  9 

1927 

137.3 

143.4 

154.6 

172.9 

161.3 

157.1 

154.3 

149.3 

151.1 

Source  of  data:   Computations  by  the  author  based  upon  table  42. 


92 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  44 

Butter:  Actual  and  Relative  Wholesale  Prices,  Purchasing  Power, 
Los  Angeles,  1910-1926 


Year 

1 

Actual  average 

price 

(cents  per  pound) 

2 

Relative  price 

(1910-1914  =  100  = 

30.36  cents) 

3 

All-commodity 
index 

4 

Purchasing 
power 

5 

1910 

33.0 

27.6 
32.2 
32.2 
26.8 
25.5 
29.7 
39.9 
49.8 
55.8 
57.2 
42.1 
41.6 
45.4 
42.7 
48.6 
44.3 

108.7 
90.9 
106.1 
106.1 
88.3 
84.0 
97.8 
131.4 
164.0 
183.8 
188.4 
138.7 
137.0 
149.5 
140.6 
160.1 
145.9 

103 
95 
101 
102 
100 
103 
130 
181 
198 
210 
231 
150 
152 
157 
153 
162 
154 

105.5 

1911 

95.7 

1912 

105.1 

1913 

104.0 

1914 

88.3 

1915 

81.6 

1916 

75.2 

1917 

72.6 

1918 

82.8 

1919 

87.5 

1920 

81.6 

1921 

92.5 

1922 

90.1 

1923 

95.2 

1924 

91.9 

1925 

98.8 

1926 

94.7 

Sources  of  data:  Computations  by  author  based  upon  table  42.  Column  2, 
arithmetic  average  of  weekly  quotations  compiled  from  California  Cultivator.  All 
quotations  are  net.  Column  4,  Bureau  Labor  Statistics,  index  of  wholesale  com- 
modity prices,  1910-1914  =  100.     Column  5,  column  3  divided  by  column  4. 


Seasonal  Variation  in  Wholesale  Prices  of  Butter. — The  indices  of 
seasonal  variation  of  the  wholesale  prices  of  butter  should  prove  to 
be  of  especial  interest  not  only  to  the  producer  of  butterfat  but  also 
to  the  manufacturer,  wholesaler,  and  retailer  of  dairy  products,  and 
to  the  ultimate  consumer  as  a  most  significant  change  has  come  about 
in  butter  prices  during  the  past  twenty-six  years.  An  examination 
of  the  quotations  from  1901-1926  indicates  that  during  the  first  few 
years  of  the  period  the  relative  range  between  the  high  price  in 
January  and  the  low  price  in  April  or  May  was  wide.  This  difference 
has  been  gradually  narrowing,  which  condition  should  assist  in  making 
the  industry  more  stable  (fig.  22).  The  prices  during  January,  Feb- 
ruary, September,  October,  November,  and  December  are  relatively 
lower  and  those  during  March,  April,  May,  June,  and  July  are 
higher.  The  relative  price  during  the  month  of  August  has  not 
changed,  as  this  month  has  been  comparatively  normal  throughout 
the  period.  With  a  more  even  price  throughout  the  year  and  a  lessen- 
ing tendency  toward  seasonal  fluctuations  the  producer  is  assured  a 
steadier  income  and  his  financial  situation  is  improved.     In  those 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY 


93 


months  in  which  relative  prices  have  increased,  the  largest  amounts 
of  butter  are  produced.  (Data  for  the  past  five  years  indicate  that 
this  is  the  period  of  largest  production  in  California.)  A  rise  in 
price  of  one  cent  during  months  of  heavy  production  means  more 
than  a  decrease  of  one  cent  during  months  of  relatively  light  produc- 
tion. The  wholesaler  can  plan  further  ahead  with  a  greater  degree 
of  certainty  than  formerly  in  such  matters  as  cold  storage  contracts, 
etc.  The  retailer  should  also  be  interested,  since  there  is  a  close 
correlation  between  the  retail  and  wholesale  price  of  butter  and  he 


Indices  of 

ol  Vart- 

o-f-ion 

IZO 


"■"*« 

I 

\ 

S 





_._..- 

,  \ 

' 

•^A 

vs. 

/9Z> 

— '"' 

r  /     li 

Ol  -  I9Z& 

\\ 
\ 

X 

/ 

\ 

— 

^— <J 

-I90I 

July 


Fig.  22. — Seasonal  variation  in  wholesale  butter  prices  in  San  Francisco. 
During  the  twenty-six  years,  1901-1926,  there  has  been  a  tendency  for  a  greater 
equalization  of  prices  throughout  the  year.  The  line  1901-1926  shows  what  the 
average  index  for  each  month  has  been,  and  those  for  1901  and  1926  indicate  the 
changes  which  have  taken  place.     Data  from  table  43. 


can  thus  sell  butter  at  a  more  uniform  price.  The  ultimate  consumer 
is  prone  to  become  accustomed  to  a  constant  price,  and  consequently 
is  less  liable  to  find  fault  than  when  prices  fluctuate  greatly.  Several 
reasons  have  undoubtedly  combined  to  make  a  more  even  price 
throughout  the  year.  Perhaps  first  and  most  important  has  been  the 
development  of  winter  dairying.  Again,  development  in  the  manu- 
facturing of  other  dairy  products  of  a  less  perishable  nature  such  as 
condensed  and  evaporated  milk,  milk  powder,  canned  buttr,  etc., 
has  in  all  probability  brought  about  a  more  equable  distribution  of 
butter   manufacture.      Competition   of   manufacturers   of   ice   cream 


94 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


for  sweet  cream  has  undoubtedly  had  an  effect  in  making  butter  prices 
more  stable.  The  influence  of  the  growth  of  urban  centers  has  per- 
haps been  felt  as  these  centers  have  demanded  a  larger  supply  of 
market  milk.  During  the  past  few  years  the  development  of  dairying 
in  the  southern  hemisphere  has  unquestionably  exerted  an  influence 
in  keeping  butter  prices  at  a  lower  level,  especially  during  the  wTinter 
months. 

TABLE  45 
Indices  of  Seasonal  Variation  in  Wholesale  Butter  Prices,  San  Francisco, 

1901-1926 


Year 

Jan. 

Feb. 

Mar. 

Apr. 

May 

June 

July 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

1901.... 

116.46 

114.23 

96.01 

76.48 

77.61 

79.83 

86.15 

100.24 

108.47 

115.12 

114.29 

115.11 

1902... 

115.80 

113.66 

96.02 

77.08 

78.13 

80.40 

86.60 

100.30 

108.39 

114.84 

113.99 

114.79 

1903... 

115.14 

113.11 

96.03 

77.69 

78.66 

80.97 

87.05 

100.36 

108.30 

114.56 

113.68 

114.45 

1904.... 

114.50 

112.57 

96.04 

78.30 

79.20 

81.54 

87.50 

100.40 

108.21 

114.26 

113.37 

114.11 

1905... 

113.87 

112.04 

96.06 

78.93 

79.72 

82.11 

87.95 

100.44 

108.11 

113.96 

113.05 

113.76 

1906... 

113.25 

111.51 

96.08 

79.53 

80.26 

82.69 

88.39 

100.48 

108.00 

113.66 

112.73 

113.42 

1907.... 

112.62 

110.99 

96.10 

80.16 

80.80 

83.28 

88.84 

100.51 

107.89 

113.35 

112.40 

113.06 

1908... 

112.03 

110.47 

96.12 

80.78 

81.33 

83.85 

89.30 

100.54 

107.77 

113.04 

112.07 

112.70 

1909... 

111.43 

109.98 

96.15 

81.42 

81.87 

84.43 

89.73 

100.56 

107.65 

112.72 

111.73 

112.33 

1910... 

110.85 

109.49 

96.18 

82.04 

82.40 

85.02 

90.18 

100.57 

107.52 

112.40 

111.39 

111.96 

1911... 

110.28 

109.01 

96.22 

82.67 

82.94 

85.60 

90.62 

100.58 

107.39 

112.07 

111.04 

111.58 

1912... 

109.71 

108.53 

96.25 

83.31 

83.49 

86.19 

9107 

100.59 

107.25 

111.73 

110.68 

111.20 

1913.... 

109.15 

108.07 

96.29 

83.95 

84.03 

86.78 

9151 

100.59 

107.10 

111.39 

110.33 

110.81 

1914.... 

108.60 

107.61 

96.34 

84.60 

84.57 

87.37 

91.96 

100.58 

106.95 

111.04 

109.96 

110.42 

1915... 

108.06 

107.15 

96.38 

85.23 

85.12 

87.97 

92.40 

100.57 

106.80 

110.69 

109.60 

110  03 

1916.... 

107.53 

106.71 

96.43 

85  88 

85.67 

88.57 

92.84 

100.56 

106.64 

110.33 

109.22 

109.62 

1917. ... 

107.01 

106.27 

96.48 

86.53 

86.22 

89.16 

93.29 

100.54 

106.47 

109.97 

108.84 

109.22 

1918... 

106.49 

105.84 

96.53 

87.19 

86.77 

89.76 

93.73 

100.51 

106.30 

109.61 

108.46 

108.81 

1919.... 

105.97 

105.41 

96.59 

87.85 

87.33 

90.37 

94.17 

100.48 

106.12 

109.24 

108.07 

108  40 

1920.... 

105.48 

105.00 

96.65 

88.51 

87.88 

90.97 

94  61 

100.45 

105.94 

108.85 

107.68 

107.98 

1921.... 

104.98 

104.58 

96.71 

89.18 

88.44 

91.58 

95.06 

100  41 

105.75 

108.48 

107.28 

107.55 

1922.... 

103.93 

103.72 

96.44 

89.61 

88.87 

92.14 

95.54 

100.50 

105.80 

108.45 

107.33 

107.67 

1923... 

103.45 

103.32 

96.51 

90.28 

89.43 

92.75 

95.98 

100.45 

105.61 

108.06 

106.92 

107.24 

1924... 

102.98 

102.93 

96.58 

90.95 

89.99 

93.36 

96.42 

100.40 

105.41 

107.66 

106.51 

106.81 

1925... 

102.52 

102.55 

96.65 

91.64 

90.56 

93.98 

96.86 

100.33 

105.20 

107.26 

106.09 

106.36 

1926.... 

102.06 

102.17 

96.73 

92.31 

91.12 

94.60 

97.31 

100.27 

104.98 

106.86 

105.67 

105.92 

Source  of  data:  Computations  by  the  author  based  upon  wholesale  net  quota- 
tions of  butter  at  San  Francisco,  table  37,  p.  83,  and  data  for  1901-1909  obtained 
in  a  similar  manner.  The  method  applied  to  this  data  in  order  to  discover  what 
seasonal  changes  in  prices  have  occurred  is  described  by  W.  L.  Crum.  Progressive 
variation  in  seasonality.  Jour.  Am.  Stat.  Assn.,  20  :  48-64.  1925,  and  is  an 
adaptation  of  the  method  of  link  relatives  as  devised  by  W.  M.  Persons  (Mills, 
F.  C.    Statistical  methods,  pp.  318-321.    Henry  Holt  and  Co.,  New  York.     1924.) 

Price  Differential  of  Different  Grades  of  Butter. — One  of  the 
questions  which  constantly  arises  in  connection  with  butter  is  the 
price  differential  based  upon  quality.  Wholesale  quotations  on  the 
various  grades  of  butter  for  Thursdays  Avere  taken  from  the  Daily 
Market  Reports  of  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics  (San  Fran- 
cisco) on  butter,  cheese,  eggs,  and  dressed  poultry,  and  with  92-score- 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF    THE   DAIRY    INDUSTRY 


95 


butter  quotation  as  a  standard  the  quotations  of  other  grades  were 
computed  as  percentages  of  the  former.  The  arithmetic  mean  of  the 
Thursday  percentages  was  taken  as  representing  the  relationship 
between  the  prices  for  the  period  studied.  These  results  are  shown 
in  table  46.  From  the  data  available,  the  lower  scoring  butter  appar- 
ently is  relatively  lower  in  price  during  the  months  from  June  to 
November  or  December,  and  relatively  higher  in  March,  April,  and 
May. 

TABLE  46 

San  Francisco  Wholesale  Quotations  for  93,  91,  and  90  Score  Butter 

Expressed  as  a  Percentage  of  the  Wholesale  Quotations 

for  92  Score  Butter,  1923-1927 


1923 

1924 

1925 

1926 

1927 

Month 

Score 

Score 

Score 

Score 

Score 

93 

90 

93 

90 

93 

91 

90 

91 

90 

91 

90 

102.7 

102.4 
103.1 
102.9 
102.8 
103.2 
103.6 
104.0 
103.8 
103.2 
102  9 
103.5 

102.9 
103.1 
103.4 
102.1 
103.2 
101.5 
102.3 
102  0 
101.8 
102.6 
101.8 
101.6 

96.0 
97  6 
98.6 

95.7 
94.0 
94.6 
90.9 
92.8 
95.6 
94.7 
93.0 

102.5 

102.6 
103.7 
102.5 
102  7 
103.2 
103.4 
103.0 
103.6 
103.5 
102.8 

96.2 
97.6 
98.4 
99.2 
98.8 
97.7 
95.3 
95.0 
95.6 
96.8 

93.7 

95.2 
97.2 
97.5 
97.8 
94.8 
93.0 
93.0 
93.5 
93.9 
92.8 
96.5 

98.2 
96.1 
98.1 
98.8 
98.5 
97.5 
95.8 
95.4 
95.7 

97.2 
94.1 
97.4 
97.5 
97.5 
96.3 
93.9 
92.9 
93.0 
92.2 
91.8 
92.2 

97.3 
98.1 
98.2 
97.2 
98.1 
95.7 
95.8 
96.8 
94  1 

94.5 

96.4 

March 

April 

May 

99.3 
98.3 
97.4 
94.5 
92.8 
89.4 
88.3 
89.3 
91.8 
94.8 

96  0 

95.7 
96.6 

94  5 

July 

94.0 

93.6 

90.6 

99.4 

94.9 

Source  of  data:  Computations  by  author  on  Thursday  wholesale  quotations 
published  in  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Bur.  Agr.  Eeon.  (San  Francisco  office).  Butter, 
cheese,  eggs,  and  dressed  poultry.  Mimeographed  one-page  market  news  sheets 
issued  daily. 

According  to  the  Office  of  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics 
in  San  Francisco,39  the  greater  spread  between  92-score  and  lower 
grades  of  butter  from  June  to  November  is  due  to  the  fact  that 
larger  quantities  of  poor  butter  appear  on  the  market.  While  it  is 
true  that  weather  conditions  in  the  interior  valleys  of  the  state  make 
the  production  of  a  high-grade  raw  product  more  difficult,  it  will  be 
noted  that  the  period  also  generally  corresponds  with  that  of  greatest 
importations  from  the  outside.  A  considerable  part  of  the  lower 
scoring  butter  originates  outside  of  California.40 


so  Letter  from  F.  H.  McCampbell   (Bur.  Agr.  Econ.)   to  author. 
40  Information  to  author  while  in  other  western  states,  May,  1927. 


96 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Daily  Variation  in  Wholesale  Prices. — A  study  of  the  daily 
quotations  of  butter  during  the  two  years  1925  and  1926  at  both  Los 
Angeles  and  San  Francisco  fail  to  reveal  differences.  Such  differences 
as  exist  are  within  the  range  of  error  (table  47). 


TABLE  47 

Daily  Variation  in  Wholesale  Prices  of  Butter,  Los  Angeles  and 
San  Francisco,  1925-1926 

Each  day  of  week =100 


Los  Angeles 

San  Francisco 

1925 

1926 

1925 

1926 

100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
99.8 
100.1 
100.1 

100.0 
100.1 
100.1 

99.9 
99.9 
100.0 

99.8 
100.0 

99.8 
100.2 
100.0 
100.2 

99  7 

99.8 

100.0 

100.0 

100.2 

Saturday 

100.3 

Source  of  data: 

Computations  by  author  based  upon  daily  market  reports  appearing  in  U.  S. 
Dept.  Agr.,  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  (San  Francisco  office).  Butter,  cheese,  eggs,  and 
dressed  poultry.     Mimeographed  one-page  market  news  sheets  issued  daily. 

In  making  calculations  only  'normal'  weeks  were  considered.  Weeks  contain- 
ing holidays,  together  with  those  which  might  be  affected  by  holidays  in  previous 
or  subsequent  weeks,  have  not  been  utilized. 


CHEESE  PRICES 

Reliability  of  Data  for  Prices. — Owing  to  the  large  number  of 
varieties,  cheese  prices  are  difficult  to  compare.  The  general  trend 
in  American  cheese  prices  has  been  the  same  in  the  various  large 
centers.  A  comparison  between  wholesale  prices  of  No.  1  American 
cheese  at  New  York  and  California  flats  at  San  Francisco  reveals  the 
fact,  however,  that  with  the  exception  of  the  year  1925  San  Francisco 
prices  have  been  relatively  higher  (1910-1914  base).  In  California, 
cheese  is  far  superior  to  that  produced  in  the  period  before  prohibi- 
tion; consequently  wholesale  quotations  (table  48)  will  not  be  exactly 
comparable.  This  discrepancy  would  slightly  raise  the  relative  quota- 
tions with  a  consequent  small  rise  in  purchasing  power. 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY    INDUSTRY 


97 


o  ~  ~  B* 

P  ^  s  p 

p   ,    ,   ft 

HiCD     S     C  h  • 

•-<  ft  h.  o  ora 

O    P    •       «    • 

S  P 

d-H    QHiW 

p  o  £r  p  •■ 

»=r-CP5   ft    s^    Li 

00  ptf>    ~  © 

•?  g  Sag 

P     —  JL  Q 

g.  p  p  « 

ST  <^  ° 
"2       «> 

ft    P    <rt-  ft 

O*  H  O  & 
ft    ft    C» 

£*  *  S- 

ft    rt-  q 

>£>    ft    _  P 

£     S-m 

£•  tr*  <rf  ~ 
n-  P«  ft 

P-        P 
o   ft   ^-  ft 

H»^     p-5' 

CTt-    O      ft 

H>pg 
ft    o    <    ^ 

p-  -<  ft  r1 

ft    y    00 

5S  5L  ^  <d 
B"*  P  6 
»  5  -*  K* 

(Jo    ft    ft    P 

^  ft  p 

ns  p  p 
p      ft 

CO    jrf 

«-»-  S  p  ft 
B.  P  p 

H»  So     2"   ° 

3  » I"  I 

<     hi.  P     CD 
c-t-   QD 

•  Is* 

2  2  2  m 

.        P     ft     00 


ftf 


3    os 


e.    s 


1 

1 

/ 

I 

^ 

g 

i 

5 
J 

? 

1 

1 

,3' 

ft* 

1 

j 

\    y 

1 

98 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


The  term  "California  flats"  may  refer  to  either  the  California 
Cheddar  or  the  California  granular — or  both.41  Owing  to  the  small 
amount  of  cheese  manufactured  in  California,  the  wholesale  price  is 
perhaps  largely  dependent  on  general  cheese  prices. 

A  comparison  of  the  purchasing  powers  of  butter  and  cheese 
indicates  that  there  has  been  a  tendency  during  the  past  nine  years 
for  cheese  prices  to  fluctuate  relatively  more  than  butter. 

Compared  with  wholesale  commodities,  cheese  prices  were  rela- 
tively slow  in  rising  at  the  beginning  of  the  European  War — 
especially  in  1915  and  1916.  In  1917  they  began  to  climb  more 
rapidly  than  general  commodity  prices  and  there  has  been  a  general 
tendency  since  1917  for  cheese  to  become  higher  in  purchasing  power 
(fig.  23). 

TABLE  48 
Cheese  Quotations — California  Flats — in  San  Francisco,  1910-1927 

(Cents  per  pound) 


Year 


1910 
1911 
1912 
1913 
1914 
1915 
1916 
1917 
1918 
1919 
1920 
1921 
1922 
1923 
1924 
1925 
1926 
1927 


Jan. 


18.0 
16.3 
16.3 
15.4 
17.8 
13.3 
16.5 
17.9 
25.5 
30.9 
31.0 
25.0 
24.4 
22.0 
24.7 
18.8 
23.7 
24.8 


Feb. 


19.3 
15.8 
16.4 
16.5 
18.8 
13.9 
17.1 
19.9 
25.5 
28.9 
30.1 
25.0 
24.9 
23.2 
24.8 
20.6 
25.3 
23.2 


Mar. 


16.9 
12.7 
18.8 
15.3 
16.0 
11.8 
17.1 
20.7 
25.6 
31.8 
31.5 
23.9 
22.1 
24.6 
25.0 
19.5 
22.6 
22.6 


Apr. 


13.9 
12.4 
16.3 
13.1 
14.9 
11.5 
14.9 
20.7 
26.6 
31.0 
27.4 
19.1 
22.4 
22.0 
22.0 
20.9 
21.8 
22.9 


May 


13.8 
12.5 
13.6 
14.2 
13.6 
11.0 
12.8 
21.8 
22.1 
31.2 
26.5 
15.0 
17.8 
22.0 
22.3 
20.6 
21.0 
20.4 


June 


14.0 
12.3 
13.5 
14.8 
12.9 
10.8 
14.6 
21.2 
24.4 
29.5 
30.4 
18.0 
19.1 
26.0 
22.3 
22.2 
20.5 
20.0 


July 


14  5 
13.1 
14.1 
15.7 
13.5 
11.9 
14.0 
19.8 
26.3 
33.0 
33.2 
23.3 
21.4 
25.9 
21.8 
22.6 
20.3 
20.3 


Aug.     Sept 


15  5 
14.1 
14.1 
17.1 
14.0 
12.5 
14.3 
22.3 
29.0 
35.8 
31.5 
21.9 
22.3 
28.4 
20.8 
23.9 
21.0 
21.0 


15.7 
14.3 
14.8 
16.8 
14.1 
13.0 
14.8 
22.7 
30.9 
36.5 
34.9 
22.6 
25.8 
29.5 
20.4 
25.2 
22.6 
22.4 


Oct. 


14.4 
17.3 
17.0 
14.5 
16.4 
16.4 
22.3 
31.3 
34.0 
28.9 
25.3 
26.3 
29.1 
21.0 
25.9 
23.5 


Nov. 


16.5 
16.4 
17.9 
18.4 
15.3 
16.4 
16.9 
23.0 
32.8 
34.8 
25.9 
32.1 
23.2 
28.9 
21.9 
27.6 
24.6 


Dec. 


16.9 
15.6 
15.5 
17.7 
13.1 
15.7 
17.0 
23.0 
35.4 
32.8 
29.3 
22.7 
24.8 
25.3 
21.6 
24.1 
25.0 


Average 


16.0 
14.1 
15.7 
16.0 
14.9 
13.2 
15.5 
21.3 
27.9 
32  5 
30.0 
22.8 
22.9 
25.6 
22.4 
22.7 
22.6 


Source  of  data:  Monthly  quotations  computed  by  the  author  on  the  basis  of 
the  Wednesday  quotations  in  the  Pacific  Dairy  Review.  The  arithmetic  mean  of 
these  quotations  has  been  used.  The  quotations  for  the  period  1918-1925  are 
net  as  discounts  have  in  every  case  been  subtracted  by  the  author.  Quotations 
have  been  checked  by  a  comparison  with  those  appearing  in  the  San  Francisco 
Chronicle. 


4i  Letter  from  C.  A.  Phillips,  Dairy  Industry  Division,  University  of  Califor- 
nia, Dec.  30,  1926. 


Bul.437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY 


99 


TABLE  49 

Relative  Wholesale  Prices  and  Purchasing  Power  of  California  Flats  in 

San  Francisco,  1902-1926 

1910-1914  =  100  =  50.153 


Year 

Relative 
price 

Purchasing 
power 

Year 

Relative 
price 

Purchasing 
power 

1902 

75.2 
85  0 
68.0 
77.1 
82.4 
94.8 
81.1 
100.0 
104.6 
92.2 
102.6 
104.6 
97.4 

87.5 
97.6 
78.0 
87.8 
91.4 
99.6 
88.3 
101.3 
101.9 
97.4 
101.7 
102.8 
97.5 

1915 

86.3 
101.4 
139.2 
182.4 
212.4 
196.1 
149.0 
149.7 
167.3 
146.4 
148.4 
148.4 

84.1 

1903 

1916 

78  6 

1904 

1917 

77.2 

1905 

1918 

92  3 

1906. 

1919 

101.1 

1907. 

1920 

85  2 

1908 

1921 

99.6 

1909 

1922 

98.8 

1910 

1923 

106.9 

1911 

1924 

96.1 

1912 

1925 

91.6 

1913 

1926 

96.3 

1914 

Source  of  data:   Computations  by  author  based  upon  table  48.     The  basis  of 
the  purchasing  power  is  the  "All  Commodity  Index,"  1910-1914  =  100. 


TABLE  50 

Seasonal  Variation  in  Quotations  on  California  Flat  Cheese, 

San  Francisco,  September,  1918-August,  1926 


January... 
February.. 

March 

April 

May 

June 


(100  =  normal) 

96.1  July 99.9 

97.7  August 103.5 

97.9  September 110.0 

92.1  October 108.9 

88.9  November 109.1 

93.4  December 102.5 


Source  of  data:  Original  data  in  table  48.  The  link  relative  method  of  meas- 
uring seasonal  variation  was  used  as  described  in  Day,  E.  E.  Statistical  analysis. 
459  pp.,  84  diag.     The  Macmillan  Company,  New  York.     1925. 

Comparable  data  are  not  available  for  Los  Angeles. 


Seasonal  Variation  in  Cheese  Prices. — Seasonal  variation  in  the 
quotations  of  California  cheese  is  slight  at  San  Francisco  (table  50). 
There  has  been  rather  a  decided  movement  for  a  change  in  the 
variation  in  certain  months.  January  and  February,  and  to  a  lesser 
degree  March,  have  evidenced  a  tendency  for  lower  relative  prices. 
May,  June,  and  September  have,  on  the  other  hand,  shown  a  tendency 
for  a  higher  relative  price.  The  first  six  months  of  the  year  have 
been  below  normal  and  the  last  six  months  have  been  above  normal. 
Since  cheese  is  normally  stored,  advantage  is  taken  of  the  lower  prices 
of  milk  during  the  spring  months  and  cheese  is  manufactured  at  that 
time. 


100  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


MAEKET-MILK  PEICES 

United  States. — Since  market  milk  is  a  perishable  commodity,  it  is 
natural  to  expect  that  the  local  conditions  surrounding  a  market  would 
largely  determine  prices.  The  United  States  Department  of  Agri- 
culture has  attempted  to  obtain  the  prices  paid  producers  at  country 
points42  for  standard  milk  (3.5  per  cent  butterfat)  in  various  sections 
of  the  United  States  (table  51).  While  the  range  of  prices  quoted  is 
necessarily  large,  the  average  quoted  gives  an  indication  of  price 
trends  in  the  country  and  its  various  sections. 

Comparable  prices  are  available  only  since  1919.  As  was  the  case 
with  concentrated  milk  prices,  those  for  standard  milk  did  not  reach 
their  lowest  levels  until  1922,  although  recovery  in  1923  was  rapid. 
A  slight  depression  occurred  in  1924,  but  the  tendency  since  has  been 
for  an  upward  trend  in  prices  with  a  resulting  increase  in  purchasing 
power.  These  prices  have  been  far  more  regular  than  prices  paid  by 
condenseries  for  milk,  although  there  is  a  tendency  for  a  considerable 
seasonal  variation,  the  high  points  usually  occurring  in  the  spring 
and  summer  with  the  low  points  in  the  fall  and  winter. 

Prices  paid  to  producers  in  the  Pacific  section  (California,  Wash- 
ington, and  Oregon)  since  1919  have  been  slightly  under  those  paid 
in  the  United  States,  although  if  California  were  separated  from  the 
two  northern  states  the  producers'  prices  would  undoubtedly  be 
higher  than  the  average  for  the  country.  While  the  same  general 
statements  made  for  the  United  States  would  apply  to  the  Pacific 
section,  prices  in  the  latter  area  for  the  past  year  (September,  1926- 
August,  1927)  have  been  definitely  under  those  for  the  entire  country. 
It  is  very  probable  that  the  supply  in  the  Pacific  area  is  ample,  a  state- 
ment that  could  not  be  made  perhaps  for  all  sections  of  the  country. 

California. — Prices  actually  paid  to  producers  supplying  Califor- 
nia cities  with  milk  are  not  available.  Dealers'  buying  prices  for 
milk  have  been  obtained  for  Los  Angeles,  San  Francisco,  Oakland, 
and  San  Diego  (tables  52-55).  While  these  are  comparable  for  the 
same  city,  they  serve  only  in  a  general  way  to  indicate  prices  paid  to 
producers,  because  transportation  costs  would  necessarily  have  to  be 
subtracted  by  the  producer  concerned.  With  the  expansion  of  some 
cities  these  transportation  costs  have  changed.  Dealers'  buying  prices 
are  usually  f.o.b.  city,  and  generally  represent  prices  paid  for  a 
definite  quantity  of  milk  of  a  required  standard.     Because  of  differ- 

4-  The  prices  at  country  points  apply  to  milk  delivered  direct  by  farmers  in 
their  own  cans  to  local  milk-shipping  stations  and  near-by  city  milk  plants.  These 
prices  differ  from  dealers'  buying  prices  (tables  52  to  55)  by  the  costs  of  trans- 
portation applicable  to  different  shipping  points. 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY 


101 


ences  in  standards,  comparisons  between  two  different  cities  often  lead 
to  erroneous  conclusions.  Such  prices  are  liable  to  be  higher  than 
actual  prices  during  years  of  large  supply;  on  the  other  hand,  they 
may  be  actually  below  f.o.b.  prices  during  times  of  firm  demand.  As 
a  rule,  standard  prices  quoted  fail  to  take  into  account  higher  prices 
oftentimes  obtained  by  milk  of  exceptionally  low  bacterial  count, 
temperature,  etc.,  and  lower  prices  on  account  of  the  so-called  surplus. 
Wholesalers  and  distributors  have  obstacles  to  overcome  in  estimating 
prices,  largely  owing  to  the  fact  that  there  are  no  well-regulated 
market  places  or  exchanges  at  which  various  forces  of  supply  and 
demand  can  register  at  frequent  intervals.  Price  adjustments  are 
often  made  in  advance  by  contract,  which  further  complicates  the 
situation. 

TABLE  51 

Prices  Paid  to  Producers  at  Country  Points  for  Standard  Milk  (3.5-per-cent 

Butterfat)  in  the  United  States  and  the  Pacific  Section,  1919-1927 

(Dollars'1j»er  100  jpounds) 


1919 

1920 

1921 

1922 

1923 

Month 

United 
States 

Pacific 
section 

United 
States 

Pacific 
section 

United 
States 

Pacific 
section 

United 

States 

Pacific 
section 

United 

States 

Pacific 
section 

January 

3.53 
3.53 
3.45 
3.41 
3.23 
3.18 
3.10 
3.23 
3.34 
3.38 
3.39 
3.51 

3.82 
3.70 
3.58 
3.27 
3.17 
3.21 
3.33 
3.64 
3.77 
3.80 
3.72 
3.41 

3.66 
3.62 
3.47 
3.40 
3.43 
3.42 
3.59 
3.62 
3.79 
3.88 
3.81 
3.76 

3.25 
2.96 
2.62 
2.62 
2.52 
2.07 
2.55 
2.91 
2.84 
2.58 
2.54 
2.56 

3.37 
3.09 
2.99 
3.02 
2.82 
2.12 
2.74 
2.72 
2.88 
2.60 
2.62 
2.57 

2.48 
2.38 
2  21 
2.16 
2.10 
2.08 
2.19 
2.25 
2.28 
2.39 
2.48 
2.69 

2.45 
2.51 
2.42 
2  34 
2.04 
2.40 
2  24 
2.27 
2.41 
2.51 
2.60 
2.75 

2.72 
2.69 
2.67 
2.62 
2.54 
2.54 
2.56 
2.68 
2.80 
2.80 
2.90 
2.89 

2.82 

February 

March 

2.80 
2.69 

April 

3.00 

2.99 
3.00 
3.08 
3.40 
3.53 
3.68 
3.77 
3.77 

2.75 

May 

2.69 

June 

2  67 

July 

2.65 

2.79 

September 

October 

November 

December 

2.79 
2  81 
2.75 
2.90 

1924 

1925 

1926 

1927 

Month 

United 
States 

Pacific 
section 

United 
States 

Pacific 
section 

United 
States 

Pacific 
section 

United 
States 

Pacific 
section 

January 

2.86 
2.74 
2.69 
2.63 
2.56 
2  42 
2.47 
2  51 
2.61 
2.64 
2.71 
2.67 

2.89 
2.90 
2.82 
2.75 
2.87 
2.27 
2.71 
2.62 
2.58 
2.56 
2.57 
2.45 

2.68 
2.73 
2.65 
2.62 
2.58 
2.50 
2.55 
2.65 
2.66 
2.79 
2.78 
2.80 

2.59 
2.73 
2.73 
2.74 
2.71 
2  47 
2.48 
2.69 
2.61 
2.79 
2.68 
2.91 

2.87 
2.79 
2.78 
2.77 
2.64 
2.62 
2.65 
2.68 
2.75 
2.76 
2.79 
2.85 

2.71 

2.70 

2.83 

2.58 

2  51 

2.58      • 

2.68 

2.69 

2.72 

2.63 

2.57 

2.67 

2.86 
2.79 
2.73 
2.71 
2.67 
2.63 
2.64 
2.70 
2.70 
2.77 

2.71 

February 

2.58 

March 

2.60 

April 

2.59 

May 

2.48 

2.49 

July 

August 

September 

October 

2.60 
2.60 
2  68 
2.70 

Sources  of  data:  1919-1920,  letter  from  L.  M.  Davis,  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  to 
author,  July  19,  1927.  1921,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Market  Reporter.  1922-1923, 
U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Weather,  Crops  and  Markets.  1924-1927,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr. 
Crops  and  Markets. 


102  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

The  retail  price  used  in  this  discussion  is  that  paid  for  standard 
milk  on  routes.  This  is  uniform  in  the  various  cities  for  the  same 
grade  of  milk.  While  these  prices  to  consumers  are  perhaps  repre- 
sentative, nevertheless  a  comparison  between  such  prices  over  a  series 
of  years  might  be  misleading.  It  is  acknowledged  by  producer,  dis- 
tributor, and  consumer  that  the  milk  generally  distributed  today  is 
superior  to  that  sold  before  the  war.  Strictly  speaking,  the  retail 
prices  even  within  the  same  city  are  not  comparable. 

Certain  similarities  exist  in  the  price  movements  in  the  California 
cities  studied.  The  wholesale  price  of  market  milk  did  not  rise  as 
rapidly  as  general  commodity  prices,  but  in  turn  failed  to  fall  as  low 
in  1921  or  1922.  All  four  cities  studied  give  evidence  of  a  steady 
retail  price.  The  retail  price  of  quarts  was  kept  low  even  during  the 
peak  years  of  prices  and  in  some  cities  the  increase  has  come  in  the 
prices  paid  for  pints,  and  prices  paid  by  the  wholesale  trade  (hotels 
and  restaurants),  while  in  others  the  comparatively  low  price  has 
been  maintained  in  part  through  the  consolidation  of  milk  distributors. 

The  retail  price  of  quarts  in  the  four  California  cities — Los 
Angeles,  San  Francisco,  Oakland,  and  San  Diego — has  increased  less 
rapidly  than  those  in  the  country  at  large. 

Los  Angeles. — The  rapid  changes  which  have  taken  place  in  Los 
Angeles  and  vicinity  have  made  it  extremely  difficult  to  collect 
comparable  data  over  a  long  series  of  years.  Prices  have  been  on  a 
butterfat  basis.  An  attempt  has  been  made  in  table  52  to  give  the 
actual  price  paid  to  dairymen  in  addition  to  the  basic  price,  because 
payments  have  been  made  to  producers  on  a  number  of  different 
standards  in  addition  to  butterfat,  including  surplus,  bacterial  count, 
etc.  It  is  highly  probable  that  some  dairymen  who  have  carefully 
regulated  their  production  and  who  have  in  addition  taken  advantage 
of  the  various  premiums  offered  have  been  able  to  obtain  the  standard 
price  or  in  cases  have  exceeded  it. 

Although  the  wholesale  price  of  milk  at  Los  Angeles  shows  a 
relatively  high  level,  it  would  be  slightly  higher  if  it  were  not  for 
the  'surplus,'  upon  which  it  has  been  impossible  to  obtain  accurate 
information.  A  ' surplus'  of  milk  is  necessary  in  any  large  city 
owing  to  the  sudden  and  unexpected  demands  which  the  public  make. 
Estimates  of  the  necessary  'surplus'  in  the  general  wholesale  and 
retail  business  in  Los  Angeles  vary  from  10  to  15  per  cent.  In  a 
strictly  retail  business  the  necessary  surplus  is  estimated  at  from 
2  to  3  per  cent.  Milk  producers  and  distributors  feel  that  an  even 
production  of  milk  throughout  the  year  would  help  to  bring  about  a 
more  satisfactory  solution  of  the  surplus  problem. 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY    INDUSTRY 


103 


TABLE  52 
Market  Milk  Prices  in  Los  Angeles,  California,  1910-1927 


Cents  per 

pound  of 

butterfat 

in  standard 

milk— 
f.o.b.  Los 
Angeles 

Relatives 

of  prices 

in  col.  1 

1915-17  =  100 

2 

Dealers' 

buying 

price, 

including 

surplus 

(cents  per 

pound 

butterfat) 

3 

Retail  price  on  routes 

Year 

Cents 

per 
quart 

4 

Relatives 

of  quart 

prices 

1910-14  =  100 

5 

Cents 
per 
pint 

6 

Relatives 

of  pint 

prices 

1910-14  =  100 

7 

1910 

9.0 
9.1 
10  0 
10.0 
10.0 
8.6 
9.0 
10.3 
13.8 
14.3 
17.0 
15.2 
14.2 
15.0 
15.4 
14.9 
15.0 
15.0 
15  0 
15.0 
15.0 
15.0 
15  0 
15  0 
15  0 
15.0 

93.7 
94.7 
104.1 
104.1 
104.1 
89.5 
93.7 
107.2 
143.6 
148.8 
176.9 
158.2 
147.8 
156.1 
160.3 
155.0 
156.1 
156.1 
156.1 
156.1 
156.1 
156.1 
156.1 
156.1 
156  1 
156.1 

5.5 
5.0 
5.5 
5.5 
5.5 
4.8 
5.0 
6.0 
7.8 
8.2 
9.5 
8.6 
8.2 
9.0 
9.3 
9.0 
9.0 
9.0 
9.0 
9.0 
9.0 
9.0 
9.0 
9.0 
9.0 
9  0 

103.6 

1911 

94.2 

1912 

103.6 

1913 

103.6 

1914 

103.6 

1914 

51.2 
54.6 
68.2 
97.0 
103.0 
122.0 
98.0 
92.0 
98.0 
100.0 
92.0 
93.0 
90.0 
90.0 
90.0 
90.0 
90.0 
90  0 
88.0 
88.0 

88.3 
94.1 
117.6 
167.2 
177.6 
210.3 
169.0 
158.6 
169.0 
172.4 
158.6 
160.3 
155.2 
155.2 
155.2 
155.2 
155  2 
155.2 
151  7 
151.7 

90.4 

1916 

94.2 

1917 

113.0 

1918 

146.9 

1919 

102.0 
121.0 
95.0 
87.0 
98.0 
100.0 
91.0 
92.0 
92.0 
90.0 
85.0 
85.0 

154.5 

1920 

179.0 

1921 

162.0 

1922 

154.5 

1923 

169.6 

1924 

175.3 

1925 

169.6 

1926 

169.6 

1927— Jan 

169.6 

Feb 

169.6 

Mar 

169.6 

Apr 

169.6 

May 

169.6 

169.6 

July 

169.6 

169.6 

Sept 

169.6 

Sources  of  data: 

Col.  1,  California  Milk  Producers'  Association,  Los  Angeles.  This  price  does 
not  include  surplus. 

Col.  3.  Actual  prices  returned  by  certain  distributors  in  Los  Angeles,  includ- 
ing surplus. 

Cols.  4  and  6,  information  furnished  author  by  Crescent  Creamery  Company, 
Los  Angeles,  Calif.,  and  Los  Angeles  Creamery  Company,  Los  Angeles,  Calif. 

* 

From  the  standpoint  of  the  dairyman  now  in  business  in  Los 
Angeles  County,  the  wholesale  price  of  milk  produced  in  the  vicinity 
of  the  city  must  be  such  that  it  will  not  encourage  large  shipments 
of  milk  to  enter  the  city  from  more  distant  points,  and  this  situation 
must  be  constantly  kept  in  mind  in  the  future.  If  the  city  of  Los 
Angeles  should  continue  to  grow  as  rapidly  in  the  future  as  it  has  in 
the  past,  most  careful  consideration  should  be  given  to  the  potential 
sources  for  its  market-milk  supply. 


104 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  53 

Market-milk  Prices  in  San  Francisco,  California,  1910-1927 


Price 

paid  to 

producers 

for  3.6% 

milk 

(cents  per 

gallon) 

1 

Range  of 

dealers' 

buying 

prices  of 

3.6%  milk 

(cents  per 

gallon) 

2 

Dealers' 
buying 
prices. 

Bureau  of 
Labor 

(cents  per 

gallon) 

3 

Relatives 
of  prices 

paid  to 
producers 

in  col.  1 

4 

Retail  prices* 

Year 

Cents 

per 
quart 

5 

Relatives 
of  quart 

price 

1910-14  = 

100 

6 

Cents 
per 
pint 

7 

Relatives 

of  pint 

price 

1910-14  = 

100 

8 

1910    

15.5 
15.9 
16.0 
16.8 
16.8 
16.5 
16.6 
19.9 
28.9 
31.2 
36.0 
32.0 
27.0 
26.7 
26.5 
26.5 
26.5 

95.7 
98.1 
98.8 
103.7 
103.7 
101.9 
102.5 
122.8 
178.4 
192.6 
222.2 
197.5 
166.7 
164.8 
163.6 
163.6 
163.6 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10.7 

12.7 

14.2 

16.4 

14.0 

13.0 

13.2 

14.0 

14.0 

14.0 

14.0 

14.0 

14.0 

14.0 

14.0 

14.0 

14.0 

14  0 

14.0 

100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
107 
127 
142 
164 
140 
130 
132 
140 
140 
140 
140 
140 
140 
140 
140 
140 
140 
140 
140 

5.8 
5.8 
5.8 
5.0 
5.0 
5.0 
5.0 
5.9 
7.3 
8.3 
9.7 
8.6 
8.0 
8.2 
9.0 
9.0 
9.0 
9.0 
9.0 
9.0 
9.0 
9.0 
9.0 
9.0 
9.0 
9.0 

106 

1911 

106 

1912 

106 

1913 

17.2 
17.2 
16.8 
16.4 
20.0 
27.6 
31.2 
36.4 
29.6 
27.2 
27.2 
27.2 
27.2 
27.1 
27.2 
27.2 
27.2 
27.2 
27.2 
27.2 
27.2 
27.2 
27.2 

91 

1914 

91 

1915 

91 

1916 

16.4-17.4 
20.0-20.4 

91 

1917 

108 

1918 

133 

1919 

151 

1920 

36.4-36.9 
29.6-30.2 
26.4-27.3 
27.2-27.7 
26.6-28.6 
26.6-28.8 
26.6-28.4 
27.2-29.4 
26.4-27.9 
26.4-27.4 
26.6-26.7 
26.2-26.7 

177 

1921 

156 

1922 

146 

1923 

149 

1924 

164 

1925 

164 

1926 

164 

1927— Jan 

164 

Feb 

164 

164 

164 

164 

164 

July 

164 

164 

Sept 

164 

*  While  these  are  quoted  prices,  information  to  the  author  indicates  that  actual  prices  are  slightly 
lower. 

Sources  of  data: 

Col.  1,  furnished  by  San  Francisco  Milk  Dealers'  Association. 

Col.  2,  furnished  by  individual  milk  distributors,  San  Francisco. 

Col.  3,  1913-1924,  U.  S.  Dept.  Labor,  Bur.  Labor  Statistics,  Bui.  390:  p.  78. 
1925-1927,  U.  S.  Dept.  Labor,  Monthly  Labor  Eeview. 

Col.  4,  computations  by  author,  1910-1914   (col.  1)  s=  100. 

Cols.  5  and  7,  San  Francisco   Milk  Dealers'   Association. 

Cols.  6  and  8,  computations  by  author,  1910-1914  (cols.  5  and  7)  t=  100. 


San  Francisco. — Data  on  dealers'  wholesale  milk  prices  f.o.b. 
San  Francisco  have  been  furnished  by  the  United  States  Bureau  of 
Labor  Statistics  since  1913,  and  by  the  San  Francisco  Milk  Dealers' 
Association  since  1910  (table  53).  Comparisons  between  these  prices 
and  actual  prices  paid  to  farmers  by  individual  concerns  check  rather 
closely.     The  milk-price  relative  (table  53)  lagged  behind  the  whole- 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY    INDUSTRY 


105 


sale  commodity  relative  until  the  drop  in  1921  occurred,  but  it  has 
been  slightly  above  ever  since.  Over-emphasis  should  not  be  placed 
upon  this  fact,  since  the  dairyman  may  or  may  not  be  so  situated  that 
his  relative  price  is  as  favorable.  The  San  Francisco  wholesale  price 
has  been  characterized  by  its  regularity.  Provided  the  price  offered 
brings  the  necessary  additions  to  the  supply,  this  is  an  excellent  sit- 
uation. 

Special  attention  may  be  called  to  the  retail  prices  per  quart  which 
have  advanced  less  rapidly  since  1910-1914  than  either  wholesale 
prices  of  milk  or  general  wholesale  prices.  The  opposite  has  been  the 
case  with  pints. 

TABLE  54 

Market-Milk  Prices  in  Oakland,  California,  1910-1927 


Distributors' 

buying  price, 

f.o.b.  Oakland, 

3.6%  milk 

(Cents  per  gallon) 

Range  of  prices 

Average 

of  1 
(median) 

2 

Relative 
buying 

price 

Oakland 

1910-14  =  100 

3 

Retail  prices  on  routes 

Year 

Cents 

per 

quart 

4 

Relatives 

of  quart 

price 

1910-14  =  100 

5 

Cents 
per 
pint 

6 

Relatives 

of  pint 

price 

1910-14  =  100 

7 

1910 

16 

16 

16 
16.  -16.75 
16.  -16.83 
16.  -16.50 
16.  -16.50 
19.5-21.0 
26.9-28.0 
28.8-31.5 
36.3-36.7 
27.7-28.9 
23.5-25.2 
26.3-28.0 
24.2-26.7 
18.7-24.1 
22.0-24.7 

16 

16 

16 

164 

16.4 

16.3 

16.3 

20.3 

27.6 

31.3 

36.7 

28.8 

24.5 

27.3 

25.9 

23.0 

24.5 

25.9 

26.3 

25.6 

25.2 

25.8 

98.8 
98.8 
98.8 
101.2 
101.2 
100.6 
100.6 
125.3 
170.4 
193.2 
226.6 
177.8 
151.2 
168.5 
159.9 
142.0 
151.2 
159.9 
162.3 
158.0 
155.6 
159.3 

9.2 
9.2 
9.2 
9.2 
9.2 
9.2 
9.4 
10.5 
11.8 
14.0 
15.0 
13.3 
11.3 
10.5 
12.8 
12.0 
12.0 
12.3 
13.0 
13.0 
13  0 
13.0 
13.0 
13.0 
13  0 
13.0 

100. 

100. 

100. 

100. 

100. 

100. 

102.3 

114.5 

128.1 

152.7 

163.6 

145.5 

123.6 

114.5 

139.9 

130.9 

130.9 

134.5 

141.8 

141.8 

141.8 

141.8 

141.8 

141.8 

141.8 

141.8 

5.8 
5.8 
5.8 
5.8 
5.8 
5.8 
5.9 
6.1 
6.5 
8.0 
9.0 
9.0 
7.7 
7.3 
8.4 
8.0 
8.0 
8.3 
9.0 
9.0 
9  0 
90 
9.0 
9  0 
9.0 
9.0 

100 

1911 

100 

1912 

100 

1913 

100 

1914 

100 

1915 

100 

1916 

100  7 

1917 

104  3 

1918 

111  5 

1919 

137  2 

1920 

154  4 

1921 

154  4 

1922 

131  6 

1923 

125  7 

1924 

144  4 

1925 

137  2 

1926  

137  2 

1927— Jan 

142  9 

Feb 

154  4 

Mar 

154  4 

154  4 

154  4 

154  4 

July 

154  4 

154  4 

Sept 

154  4 

Sources  of  data: 

Col.  1,  f.o.b.  price  range  furnished  to  author  by  various  milk  distributors  of 
Oakland  and  Berkeley,  Calif. 

Col.  2,  median  of  data  in  col.  1. 

Col.  3,  relative  figures — base    1910-71914  =  100. 

Cols.  4  and  6,  Alameda  County  Milk  Dealers'  Association,  Oakland,  Calif. 

Cols.  5  and  7,  computations  by  author. 


106 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Oakland. — Wholesale  prices  have  been  furnished  by  several 
sources,  including  those  kept  on  file  by  the  Alameda  County  Milk 
Distributors'  Association.  Until  1917  the  prices  quoted  were  fairly 
uniform.  From  this  time  on,  however,  an  average  price  is  difficult 
to  obtain.  Data  not  being  available  for  weighting,  the  average  price 
has  been  obtained  by  selecting  the  median  of  the  average  monthly 
prices  paid  by  the  various  concerns.  The  same  general  trend  is  shown 
as  has  prevailed  in  San  Francisco.  Although  the  data  given  in  table 
54  are  calculated  upon  a  gallonage  basis,  payment  in  many  cases  has 
been  based  upon  a  standard  butterf at  content.  A  pronounced  seasonal 
variation  in  the  wholesale  price  is  not  evident,  although  indications 
are  that  a  slightly  lower  price  has  prevailed  during  the  months  of 
April,  May,  June,  and  July.  The  data  obtained  for  Oakland  would 
apply  to  the  other  East  Bay  cities  of  Alameda  County. 


TABLE  55 

Market-milk  Prices  in  San  Diego,  California,  1912-1926 

(4-per  cent  basis) 


Relative 

dealers'  buying 

price,  f.o.b. 

San  Diego 

1913  =  100* 

Retail  prices  on  routes 

Year 

Actual  price, 
cents  per  quart 

Relatives  of 

quart  price 

1913  =  100 

Actual  price, 
cents  per  pint 

Relatives  of 
pint  price 
1913  =  100 

1912 

94.5 
100.0 
108.8 
117.5 
119.8 
136.9 
165.9 
181.1 
214.3 
193.6 
184.3 
163.6 
171.4 
187.6 
188.0 

1913 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

13. 

14.3 

16.0 

17.7 

16  1 

15.1 

14.7 

14.8 

14.8 

15.0 

100 
110 
120 
130 
130 
143 
160 
177 
161 
151 
147 
148 
148 
150 

5. 

6. 

6. 

7. 

7. 

8.1 

9.0 

9.3 

9.1 

9.1 

9.0 

8.7 

8.8 

9.0 

100 

1914 

120 

1915 

120 

1916    

140 

1917 

140 

1918 

162 

1919  

180 

1920 

186 

1921 

182 

1922 

182 

1923 

180 

1924 

1925 

1926 

174 
176 
180 

*  Actual  price  is  not  given;  to  do  so  would  be  to  disclose  identities  of  those  supplying  information. 

Source  of  data:  Information  furnished  author  by  milk-distributing  firms  in 
San  Diego.  The  relative  price  in  col.  1  represents  the  relative  price  per  unit  of 
milk  received — all  classes  of  market  milk  including  surplus. 


BUL.  437]  ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY  107 

San  Diego. — Table  55  offers  an  indication  of  the  relative  prices 
paid  to  producers  for  their  product  f.o.b.  San  Diego.  The  relative 
increase  in  wholesale  prices  has  come  about  through  the  intense  com- 
petition which  other  lines  of  endeavor  in  agriculture  have  offered  in 
San  Diego  County.  The  prices  upon  which  the  data  in  table  55  are 
based  include  payments  for  surplus  milk.  It  will  be  noted  that  prices 
paid  to  producers  f.o.b.  San  Diego  have  increased  relatively  more  than 
those  paid  by  the  ultimate  consumer  for  quarts. 

Other  Cities. — The  wholesale  price  paid  for  milk  in  other  cities  of 
the  state,  especially  in  those  in  close  proximity  to  important  dairy 
districts,  is  apparently  more  closely  geared  to  the  price  of  butterfat 
than  is  the  case  in  the  larger  cities  of  the  state. 

Relation  between  Market  Milk  and  Butter  Prices. — Although  in 
the  larger  cities  minor  fluctuations  in  the  prices  of  butter  apparently 
do  not  have  an  effect  on  market-milk  prices,  there  is  a  distinct 
tendency  for  prices  of  both  commodities  to  move  together.  It  may 
be  that  in  the  future,  with  a  still  greater  proportion  of  milk  utilized 
for  direct  consumption,  wholesale  prices  of  market  milk  will  move 
more  independently  of  butter  prices.  It  is  highly  probable  that  some 
correlation  between  the  two  sets  of  prices  will  continue  to  exist,  owing 
to  the  progress  which  has  and  undoubtedly  will  be  made  in  milk 
transportation. 

SWEET-CREAM  PRICES 

Difficulties  in  Obtaining  Comparable  Prices. — Lack  of  uniformity 
in  both  the  product  and  manner  of  payment  make  studies  relative 
to  sweet-cream  prices  extremely  difficult.  Since  sweet  cream  may  be 
used  for  direct  consumption,  ice-cream  manufacture,  etc.,  prices  in 
many  sections  are  based  upon  quality,  butterfat  content,  and  other 
considerations.  Payments  of  hauling  charges,  rebates  for  skim  milk, 
etc.,  together  with  changes  in  all  of  these  make  comparisons  of  prices 
in  most  instances  worthless. 

General  Conclusions. — Prices  for  butterfat  in  sweet  cream  are 
closely  correlated  with  the  wholesale  quotations  for  butter  on  the 
Los  Angeles  and  San  Francisco  markets.  Prices  f.o.b.  Los  Angeles 
evidence  a  relatively  lower  price  in  1926  than  butter.  This  condition 
might  be  expected  at  times  when  a  surplus  of  milk  is  being  produced. 
In  general,  sweet-cream  prices  have  moved  in  the  same  manner  as 
butter  prices. 


108 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  56 

Prices  Paid  to  Producers  at  Condenseries  for  3.5  por  cent  Milk, 
United  States  and  Western  Section  (Southern),  1919-1927 

(Dollars  per  100  pounds) 


1919 

1920 

1921 

1922 

1923 

Month 

United 

States 

Western 
section 
(south) 

United 
States 

Western 
section 
(south) 

United 

States 

Western 
section 
(south) 

United 
States 

Western 
section 
(south) 

United 
States 

Western 
section 
(south) 

3.59 
3.48 
3.17 
2.82 
2.77 
2.80 
2.98 
3.22 
3.31 
2.88 
2.61 
2.44 

3.11 
3.22 
2.76 
2.59 
2.54 
2.45 
2.87 
2.71 
2.83 
2.56 
2.43 
2.27 

2.13 
2.07 
2.11 
2.23 
1.96 
1.61 
1.59 
1.87 
1.89 
1.87 
1.94 
1.85 

1.91 
2.09 
2.00 
1.93 
1.75 
1.54 
1.49 
1.61 
1.75 
1.73 
1.85 
1.69 

1.70 
1.53 
1.50 
1.48 
1.45 
1.45 
1.60 
1.71 
1.75 
1.86 
2.08 
2.31 

1.65 
1.51 

1.49 
1.45 
1.34 
1.42 
1.61 
1.64 
1.67 
1.87 
1.96 
2.12 

2.40 
2.37 
2.31 
2.22 
2.04 
2.02 
2.12 
2.16 
2.18 
2.23 
2.21 
2.21 

2.24 

2.19 

2.11 

April 

2.03 

May 

1.86 

June 

1.84 

July 

2.92 
3.20 
3.29 
3.32 
3.45 
3.51 

2.67 
2.91 
2.91 
3.01 
3.07 
3.18 

1.93 

2.02 

2.05 

2.13 

2  09 

2.11 

Month 


January 

February... 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November. 
December.. 


1924 


United 

States 


2.18 
2.13 
2.09 
1.93 
1.72 
1.64 
1.66 
1.66 
1.66 
1.70 
1  71 
1.85 


Western 
section 
(south) 


2.06 
2.05 
1.99 
1.85 
1.71 
1.66 
1.60 
1.60 
1.62 
1.65 
1.64 
1.70 


1925 


United 

States 


1.92 
1.93 
1.93 
1.93 
1.88 
1.82 
1.91 
1.98 
2.01 
2.09 
2.15 
2.15 


Western 
section 
(south) 


1.79 
1.78 
1.76 
1.76 
1.67 
1.66 
1.78 
1.88 
1.97 
2.02 
2.09 
2.10 


1926 


United 
States 


2.17 
2.06 
2.03 

1.93 
1.81 
1.79 
1.79 
1.84 
1.95 
2.00 
2.09 
2.22 


Western 
section 
(south) 


2.10 
2.00 
2.02 
1.81 
1.72 
1.67 
1.67 
1.72 
1.81 
1.83 
1.86 
2.01 


1927 


United 
States 


2.28 
2.28 
2.20 
2.14 
2.00 
1.91 
1.91 
2.00 


Western 
section 
(south) 


2.09 
2.10 
2.02 
1.98 
1.90 
1.84 
1.81 


Sources  of  data : 

1919-1920,  furnished  to  author  by  L.  M.  Davis,  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.,  Washington, 
D.  C. 

1921,    U.    S.    Dept.    Agr.      Market    Eeporter.      1922-1923,    U.    S.    Dept.    Agr. 
Weather,  Crops  and  Markets. 

1924-1927,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.     Crops  and  Markets. 


BUL.  437]  ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF   THE  DAIRY   INDUSTRY  109 


MILK  PEICES  AT  CONDENSERIES 

The  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture  publishes  monthly 
prices  to  producers  at  condenseries  for  3.5  per  cent  milk  (table  54). 
The  prices  do  not  include  those  paid  by  factories  which  base  prices 
in  part  on  current  wholesale  butter-market  quotations.  Factory 
prices  are  available  only  since  1919,  and  wholesale  prices  of  canned 
milk  are  available  since  1913.  There  is  close  correlation  between  the 
producers'  and  wholesalers'  prices.  Condensed  and  evaporated-milk 
prices  reached  their  high  points  in  1920,  although  the  wholesale  prices 
were  far  below  the  general  commodity  level  of  prices.  The  drop  in 
prices  from  1920  to  1922  was  perhaps  more  severe  than  was  the  case 
with  other  dairy  products.  Production  had  been  stimulated  (table 
17,  p.  55),  export  demand  fell  (table  85,  p.  153),  and  stocks  on  hand 
remained  high  during  the  spring  of  1922.  An  improvement  in  both 
producers'  and  wholesalers'  prices  came  about  in  1923.  Stocks  were 
accumulating  and  low  prices  prevailed  in  1924.  Since  the  summer  of 
the  latter  year,  prices  have  shown  a  gradual  upward  trend  and,  in 
view  of  the  falling  price  level,  concentrated  milk  has  been  in  a  more 
favorable  position  than  relative  prices,  which  are  still  low,  would 
indicate.  With  the  slowing  up  of  production,  the  low  stocks  on  hand, 
and  the  increased  consumption,  concentrated  milk  should  improve  in 
purchasing  power,  provided  the  export  demand  does  not  decrease  too 
rapidly  and  the  increased  production  evident  in  the  first  six  months 
of  1927  does  not  continue. 

Price  statistics  are  quoted  by  sections  rather  than  by  states, 
California  being  in  the  western  section  (southern)  which  includes 
California,  Utah,  Arizona,  New  Mexico,  and  Colorado.  Prices  paid 
producers  in  this  section  have  been  generally  slightly  lower  than  those 
for  the  United  States,  although  there  is  considerably  less  difference 
between  them  now  than  in  the  period  during  and  immediately  follow- 
ing the  war.  The  same  holds  true  of  wholesale  prices.  This  relative 
increase  in  prices  in  the  western  section  may  have  been  brought  about 
in  part  by  the  increasing  export  from  the  west  coast.  There  are  con- 
denseries in  California  which  have  paid  on  a  butterfat  basis  and  prices 
paid  continuously  on  this  basis  appear  relatively  more  favorable 
(table  35,  p.  80). 


110 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


POWDERED  SKTM-MILK 

The  reporting  of  skim-milk  prices  has  been  difficult  owing  to  the 
absence  in  the  past  of  uniform  grades  or  standards.  Prices  given  in 
table  57  are  an  average  of  a  wide  range  and  give  merely  an  indication 
of  the  general  trend.  An  examination  of  stocks  on  hand  and  whole- 
sale prices  shows  that  there  is  an  inverse  relationship  between  the  two. 


TABLE  57 

Average  Wholesale  Selling  Prices  of  Powdered  Skim  Milk  in  the 
United  States,  1922-1927 

(Cents  per  pound) 


Month 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925 

1926 

1927 

9.47 

8.77 

8.90 

8.91 

8.85 

9  09 

9.40 

9.96 

10.82 

11.71 

12.76 

12.65 

13.28 
12.60 
11.29 
13.17 
12.66 
13.31 
13.13 
13.77 
13  61 
13.31 
12.38 
11.88 

11.69 
11.14 
10.70 

9.63 
9.07 
9.04 
8.84 
8.83 
8.43 
8.28 
8.75 
8.47 

8.97 

9.54 

9.29 

9.66 

9.94 

10.35 

10.67 

11.31 

11.41 

11.53 

11.25 

11.45 

11.85 
11.87 
11.61 
11.19 
11.23 
10.84 
10.83 
10.57 
10.12 
10.43 
9.81 
9.69 

9.52 

8.90 

March 

9.33 

9.24 

May 

9.13 

June 

9.11 

July 

9.12 

9.24 

Sources  of  data:  1922-August,  1925,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  Sum- 
mary of  powdered  milk  statistics,  p.  1.  1925  (mimeographed  report).  September, 
1925-1927,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  The  dry  milk  report  (mimeographed 
one-page  report  issued  monthly). 

VEAL 

Reliability  of  Data. — The  farm  price  of  veal  calves  as  reported  in 
tables  58  and  59  is  fairly  dependable.43  The  prices  received  by  the 
producer  in  California  (table  59)  and  the  wholesale  prices  of  veal  on 
the  Los  Angeles  and  San  Francisco  markets  do  not  show  a  high  degree 
of  correlation.  The  former  prices  give  some  general  indication  of  the 
returns  to  the  dairyman. 

General  Trend  of  Prices. — In  the  country  as  a  whole  the  prices 
have  been  relatively  low  since  1917,  although  a  pronounced  advance 
is  evident  in  1925  and  1926  (fig.  24).  Prices  to  producers  in  Califor- 
nia have  shown  the  same  general  movement  as  those  in  the  country. 
A  study  of  veal  prices  does  not  reveal  a  well-defined  seasonal  variation. 


43  Sarle,  Charles  F.    Beliability  and  adequacy  of  farm-price  data.    U.  S.  Dept. 
Agr.,  Dept.  Bui.  1840:  1-66.     1927. 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY 


111 


8.^ 


B  >t3 

3  3  p- 

•_>•  B    *■< 


r-f-  (JQ     CD     , 

ft  CD 

:      p 


ps- 


O  ©    3 

|     P  * 


^  B  0 


tr  cd 

CD    CO 


B^J 

g'&  el  ©  cd  3. 

P  M-  Pj  K 

3  S3- a"*  I 

U^S  P*  «  «•  2 

» s- 2  i  s  §' 

°   B  I    rf 


P   © 


^J  SO*  OB 

00  (D 

.  on   <1 

P  <*■  CD 

B    &  2 
p,  ►—  CD 


^  00  <X>^ 

P  CO 

oo  P  OT3 

oo  O  2    B 


3  8  p 

O    c+  CD    2-  c+ 

B    P  O    CD 

oo    3  <73    Pi 

S  H.  3.  -  d 

p 


Ssr 


"T3    CD 


.w/-<! 


=-£2  3  Pj 


CD    o    O 
c?g2.|^ 

2  o  2  ™  ST 
m  '    2!  g*  p 

°  u^        s 


CD    CD 


5.  £ 


x 

o        « 

3  B'g  B 

►©  00    CD    2 

ST  fi     00     m     r— ' 

ej  CD     o  © 

•^  ~  P      I 

£  E  e.  »■  s 

®   S"  ^  w.  ^ 

CD  P     K  ^ 

*^  §  5.p« 
2       p       x 

<D     P  P     5 

P  o  b"  S  ? 
J=-  a  or;   p   cd 


8 


(JO 


0} 


to 


S> 


(0 


Co 


1 

fcS 

t* 

?L 

4? 

if 

sT 

M. 

? 

■*— 1 

'X 

■u^^, 

j 

3 
ft 

> 

k 

8' 

0) 

4»_ 

4 

Ui 

"% 

*£ 

► 

^ 

»  *"^"  * 

^^ 

c 

^4_ 

> 

^ 

I 

cs 

112 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


PEICES  OF  DISCARDED  MILK  COWS 

Data  over  a  considerable  period  are  not  available.  It  is  highly 
probable  that  if  prices  could  be  obtained  they  would  be  relatively 
low,  owing  to  the  low  prices  received  for  live  beef  cattle  (fig.  25). 
Quotations  on  cutters  and  canners  have  shown  a  distinct  rise  at  San 
Francisco  and  Los  Angeles  since  1922. 44 


~\ 

»^\ 

-Unitt 

/z-r 

•^otrt-h    Moving   Average 

Cc 
IZ 

l/nFor- 
-Mor 

rf-h   A 

'ovihg 

Ave 

r-age^ 

\ 

'«--*- 

m  ^^ 

\V 

>" 

V 

^J*' 



MB  *»^ 

'/ 

/ 

/0        /9ZO      Zl 


Z4-       /9Z5       Z6 


Fig.  25. — Prices  of  beef  cattle  in  the  United  States  and  California,  1910-1927. 
The  lines  of  trend  in  this  figure  are  12 -month  moving  averages  of  prices  paid  to 
producers  for  beef  cattle  in  the  United  States  and  in  California.  Since  the  de- 
pression in  1921-1922  there  has  been  a  distinct  upward  trend.  Prices  for  dis- 
carded milk  cows  follow  the  above  trends.  Data:  1910-1925  from  U.  S.  Dept. 
Agr.,  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  Statistical  Bui.  17:  p.  144.  1927.  1926-1927,  data  from 
Bur.  Agr.  Econ.,  Crops  and  Markets. 


COST    FACTORS    IN    THE    PRODUCTION    OF    MILK 

General  Considerations. — Of  the  many  factors  entering  into  the 
cost  of  producing  whole  milk  and  butterfat  the  two  outstanding  items 
are  labor  and  feed.  Studies  made  by  Adams45  indicated  that  the  com- 
bined labor  and  feed  items  accounted  for  from  73.5  to  85.7  per  cent 
of  the  total  cost  of  producing  milk ;  labor  21  to  37  per  cent,  and  feed 
42  to  56  per  cent. 


44  Quotations   from   Bureau   of   Agricultural   Economics,    San   Francisco,    and 
William  Armstrong,  Los  Angeles  Union  Stock  Yards,  Los  Angeles. 

45  Adams,  E.  L.     The  cost  of  producing  market  milk  and  butterfat  on  246 
California  dairies.     California  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  372:  150-151.     1923. 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS  OF   THE   DAIRY    INDUSTRY 


113 


TABLE  58 
Farm  Prices  of  Veal  Calves  in  the  United  States,  1910-1927 

(Dollars  per  100  pounds  live  weight) 


Year 

Jan. 

Feb. 

Mar. 

Apr. 

May 

June 

July 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

53  £ 

1910 

6  41 

6.28 

6.59 

6.54 

6.30 

6.57 

6.37 

6.29 

6.43 

6.41 

6.39 

6.38 

6.42 

1911 

6.50 

6.38 

6.48 

5.96 

5.68 

5.72 

5.74 

5.93 

6.11 

6.15 

6.10 

5.98 

6.04 

1912 

6.06 

6.07 

6.11 

6.22 

6.23 

6.33 

6.33 

6.62 

6.83 

6.90 

6.77 

6.88 

6.45 

1913 

7.00 

7.23 

7.49 

7.38 

7.17 

7.53 

7.46 

7.53 

7.73 

7.72 

7.70 

7.74 

7.48 

1914 

7.89 

7.90 

7.92 

7.68 

7.59 

7.69 

7.80 

8.08 

8.06 

7.97 

7.78 

7.61 

7.83 

1915 

7.66 

7.62 

7.50 

7.31 

7.35 

7.53 

7.87 

7.75 

7.80 

7.91 

7.69 

7.61 

7.63 

1916 

7.67 

7.87 

8.11 

8.00 

8.08 

8.39 

8.54 

8.59 

8.77 

8.59 

8.60 

8.79 

8.35 

1917 

9.15 

9.88 

9.94 

10.49 

10.48 

10.60 

10.77 

10.56 

11.08 

11.10 

10.66 

10.98 

10.51 

1918 

11.16 

11.17 

11.33 

11.71 

11.62 

11.88 

12.33 

12.22 

12.57 

12.35 

11.94 

12.31 

11.91 

1919 

12.39 

12.18 

12.65 

12.78 

12.11 

12.40 

13.38 

13.43 

13.39 

12.87 

12.65 

12.67 

12.76 

1920 

12.89 

13.12 

12.98 

12.72 

11.69 

11.68 

11.44 

11.64 

11.88 

11.64 

10.77 

9.27 

11.80 

1921 

9.34 

9.08 

9.05 

7.73 

7.55 

7.43 

7.37 

7.31 

7.67 

7.61 

7.20 

7.14 

7.81 

1922 

7.23 

7.84 

7.85 

7.26 

7.28 

7.67 

7.49 

7.67 

8.10 

8.17 

7.92 

7.78 

7.68 

1923 

8.05 

8.37 

8.20 

7.78 

7.69 

7.66 

8.00 

8.00 

8.34 

8.37 

7.85 

7.75 

7.99 

1924 

8.36 

8.51 

8.43 

8.33 

8.14 

7.91 

7.88 

7.94 

8.09 

8.22 

7.89 

7.84 

8.12 

1925 

8.50 

8.87 

9.21 

8.80 

8.35 

8.18 

8.65 

8.80 

9.07 

9.52 

9.16 

9.17 

8.85 

1926 

9.44 

9.86 

9.75 

9.45 

8.92 

9.65 

9.47 

9.54 

10.06 

10.29 

9.54 

9.44 

9.61 

1927 

9.75 

10.10 

10.10 

9.90 

9.37 

9.46 

9.82 

10  37 

10.78 

Sources  of  data: 
kets,  2  :  p.  36.  1925. 


1910-1924,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.     Supplement  to  Crops  and  Mar- 
1925-1927,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.     Crops  and  Markets. 


TABLE  59 
Farm  Prices  of  Veal  Calves  in  California,  1910-1927 

(Dollars  per  100  pounds  live  weight) 


Aver- 

Year 

Jan. 

Feb. 

Mar. 

Apr. 

May 

June 

July 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

age 

1910 

5.10 

5.60 

6.00 

6.30 

5.30 

7.00 

6.10 

5.90 

6.50 

6.70 

6.20 

6.30 

6.08 

1911 

7.00 

6.30 

6.80 

7.30 

7.30 

6.40 

5.50 

5.90 

6.90 

6.20 

6.20 

6.00 

6.48 

1912 

6.00 

6  30 

6.60 

6.80 

6  20 

6.20 

6.10 

7.20 

6.30 

6  40 

6.40 

6.90 

6.45 

1913 

6.90 

7.00 

7.00 

7.20 

7.20 

7.30 

6.60 

7.20 

7.00 

7.00 

7.10 

7.00 

7.04 

1914 

7.30 

7.60 

7.60 

7.40 

7.40 

7.80 

7.30 

7.70 

8.40 

7.90 

7.70 

8.10 

7.68 

1915 

7.90 

7.70 

7.70 

7.80 

7.50 

7.50 

7.50 

7.60 

7.20 

7.30 

7.30 

7.40 

7.53 

1916 

7.60 

7.40 

7.50 

7.70 

7.60 

7.50 

7.50 

7.50 

7.50 

7.40 

7.70 

8.20 

7.59 

1917 

8.00 

8.70 

8.60 

8.80 

8.40 

8.50 

8.40 

8.60 

9.00 

8.60 

8.70 

9.00 

8.98 

1918 

8  50 

8.50 

10.00 

10.10 

10.00 

10.00 

9  50 

10.70 

11.10 

9.80 

10.40 

10.30 

10.29 

1919 

10  50 

10.80 

11  00 

11.70 

11.43 

11.40 

11.90 

12  00 

11.80 

11.50 

10.60 

11.30 

11.33 

1920 

11.00 

12  60 

12.00 

12.00 

11.70 

10.70 

10.90 

10.20 

10.20 

10.20 

10.20 

10.00 

10.98 

1921 

10.00 

9.50 

9.20 

9.20 

8.50 

9.00 

8.50 

8  40 

8.30 

8  00 

7.70 

7.70 

8.69 

1922 

7.80 

8  20 

8.60 

8.80 

8  50 

8.00 

7.90 

8.00 

8.00 

8  10 

8.00 

8.00 

8.13 

1923 

8.10 

8  50 

8.40 

8  50 

8  30 

8.10 

8.60 

8.30 

8.00 

8  50 

8.10 

7.90 

8.28 

1924 

8.50 

8  40 

8  80 

8.50 

8  20 

7.50 

7.40 

7.50 

7.80 

7.60 

7.50 

7.50 

7.93 

1925 

8.30 

8.60 

9.20 

9.10 

9.20 

9  50 

9.40 

9.50 

9.00 

9.20 

8.80 

8.90 

9  06 

1926 

9.70 

9.70 

9.50 

10.00 

9.70 

9.70 

9.10 

9.80 

9.80 

9.10 

9  30 

9.40 

9.57 

1927 

9.70 

9.80 

10.10 

10.30 

10.20 

9.50 

9.50 

9.90 

10.00 

Sources  of  data:  1910-1925,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  Prices  of  farm 
products  received  by  producers ;  4.  Mountain  and  Pacific  States.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr., 
Statistical  Bul.  17  :  p.  144.  1927.  1926-1927,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Crops  and 
Markets. 


114 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  60 

Kelative  Prices  and  Purshasing  Power  of  Veal  Calves  in  the  United  States 
and  California,  1910-1926 


All-commodity 
index 

2 

United  States 

California 

Year 
1 

Relative 

price,  calves 

3 

Purchasing 

power,  calves 

4 

Relative 

price,  calves 

5 

Purchasing 

power,  calves 

6 

1910 

120.7 
94.7 
100.9 
101.8 
99.9 
102.6 
129.0 
180.3 
197.7 
210.1 
230.2 
149.6 
151.5 
156.5 
152.4 
162.0 
154.0 

93.8 
88.3 
94.3 
109.4 
114.5 
111.5 
122.1 
153.6 
174.1 
186.5 
172.5 
114.2 
112.3 
116.8 
118.7 
129.4 
140.5 

91.3 
93.2 
93.5 
107.5 
114.6 
108.7 
94.7 
85.2 
88.1 
88.8 
74.9 
77.9 
74.1 
74.6 
77.9 
79.9 
91.2 

90.2 
96.1 
95.7 
104.5 
113.9 
111.7 
112.6 
127.6 
146.9 
168.0 
162.8 
128.5 
120.9 
122.7 
117.7 
134.3 
153.7 

87.8 

1911 

101.5 

1912 

94.8 

1913 

102.6 

1914 

114.0 

1915 

108.8 

1916 

87.3 

1917 

70.8 

1918 

74.3 

1919 

79.9 

1920 

70.7 

1921 

85.9 

1922 

79.8 

1923 

78.4 

1924 

77.2 

1925 

82.9 

1926 

99.8 

Sources  of  data: 

Col.  2,  Bur.  Labor  Statistics,  all  commodity  index,  base  1910-1914  c=  100. 

Cols.  3,  4,  5,  6,  computations  by  author  based  upon  tables  58  and  59.  Col.  3, 
1910-1914  s=  $6.84  =  100.  Col.  4,  col.  3  divided  by  col.  2.  Col.  5,  1910-1914  = 
$6.75  =  100.     Col.  6,  col.  5  divided  by  col.  2. 


FEED  COSTS 

Alfalfa. — As  it  is  difficult  to  determine  the  costs  of  feed  to  the 
dairymen  in  California,  perhaps  the  most  valuable  information  which 
is  available  is  to  be  found  in  a  comparison  between  certain  of  the 
more  important  feeds  and  dairy  products.  Since  alfalfa  is  the  most 
important  single  feed  used  for  dairy  cattle,  a  comparison  has  been 
made  between  the  prices  of  butterfat  and  alfalfa.  That  there  is  con- 
siderable variation  in  the  quantity  of  alfalfa  hay  required  to  purchase 
a  pound  of  butterfat  may  be  seen  from  table  61  and  figure  26.  No 
pronounced  seasonal  variation  is  evident  in  the  relationship.  While 
a  distinct  seasonal  variation  may  be  discerned  with  the  prices 
obtained  for  butterfat,  this  is  not  the  case  with  alfalfa  hay.  Since 
1914  there  has  been  a  general  rise  in  the  amount  of  hay  which  one 
pound  of  butterfat  will  buy,  showing  a  rather  favorable  condition  for 
the  farmer  purchasing  alfalfa  hay  and  showing  that  it  has  also  been 
relatively  more   profitable  to  market  alfalfa  hay  through   feeding. 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY    INDUSTRY 


115 


Pounds 

k 

no 

A 

\ 

ft 

too 

90 
80 
70 
<SO 
50 
40 
SO 
ZO 
/O 
O 

A 

A 

IAa 

J 

I 

\\  A 

f 

\\\ 

Tr&nc 

V 

n 

A 

1 

l 

I 

\r 

if 

n 

tif 

\K 

7 

1  in 

f 

\i 

i 

i\i 

V 

J 

1 

i 

w 

1 

\[-4v 

1914      19/5        /<o        17 


/8         /9       /920      Zl        ZZ.        'Z3       Z4       /9Z5      Z<c>       Z7 


Fig.  26.— Price  ratio  of  butterfat  to  alfalfa  hay  in  California,  1914-1927. 
The  pounds  of  alfalfa  hay  required  to  purchase  one  pound  of  butterfat  has  varied 
considerably  since  1914.  During  the  twelve  years,-  1915-1926,  there  has  been  a 
slight  upward  trend  in  the  relationship.  Butterfat  value  has  been  increasing  more 
rapidly  that  that  of  alfalfa  hay.  Data  from  table  61.  The  equation  for  the 
line  of  trend  is  y^=  69.05  +  0.262  x,  origin  January  1,  1921. 

TABLE  61 

Pounds  of  Alfalfa  Hay  Eequired  to  Purchase  One  Pound  of  Butterfat 

in  California,  1914-1927 


Aver- 

Year 

Jan. 

Feb. 

Mar. 

Apr. 

May 

June 

July 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

age 

1914 

80  0 
64.5 

96.6 
82.9 

95.8 
85.7 

102.6 

77.5 

103.1 

77.5 

99.7 
75.6 

96.2 
64  0 

79.3 
57.3 

1915 

77.6 

73.6 

60.0 

62.7 

71.6 

1916 

63.3 

65.7 

56.8 

61.6 

70  5 

54.7 

54.9 

54.2 

61.9 

70.4 

67.2 

62.8 

62.0 

1917 

65.7 

57.3 

46.5 

42.1 

59.4 

60.1 

58.8 

67.3 

66.4 

64  0 

56.6 

54.1 

58.2 

1918 

51.8 

44.5 

44.8 

42.9 

55.6 

57.0 

63.6 

61.9 

66.6 

77.2 

75.8 

81.6 

60.3 

1919 

87.7 

64  0 

76.3 

83.9 

89.5 

85.9 

83.1 

77.8 

77.4 

82.2 

76.6 

73.4 

79.8 

1920 

57.6 

53.8 

45.9 

50  2 

58.8 

58  0 

59.0 

67.3 

75.9 

67.5 

63.5 

61  1 

59.9 

1921 

58.9 

83.1 

66.5 

86.9 

79.8 

85.8 

101.1 

109.6 

111.6 

118.9 

108  0 

76.8 

90  6 

1922 

64.6 

64 .3 

54.9 

45.6 

66.7 

87.0 

94  0 

92.0 

98.2 

88.0 

72  0 

74.7 

75  2 

1923 

74.9 

64.2 

62.5 

65.2 

67.3 

75.7 

75.8 

90  0 

76.9 

81  4 

81  1 

73.6 

74  1 

1924 

69.3 

60.8 

57.8 

45  1 

43  8 

49.4 

49.7 

48.1 

48.9 

47.2 

45  1 

52  3 

51.5 

1925 

49  0 

48.1 

45  4 

47.0 

48.9 

74.6 

75.0 

87.0 

105.3 

102.4 

91.4 

80.6 

71  2 

1926 

69.0 

60.7 

65.8 

67.1 

78.0 

73  0 

79.5 

87.6 

81.0 

79.0 

73  0 

76.7 

74  2 

1927 

77.8 

76.4 

69.0 

70.7 

77.5 

83.5 

83.5 

Source  of  data:  Computations  by  author  based  upon  table  35  (p.  80),  and  the 
monthly  prices  for  alfalfa  hay  (to  producers  in  California)  published  in  U.  S. 
D .pt.  Agr.  Crops  and  Markets  (previous  to  January,  1927,  Monthly  Supple- 
ments to  Crops  and  Markets). 


116 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Caution  should  be  used  in  drawing  sweeping  conclusions.  Oftentimes 
the  dairyman  is  a  purchaser  of  alfalfa  hay  when  prices  are  high  and 
a  seller  when  prices  are  low.  Comparatively  few  dairymen  are  able 
to  furnish  the  feed  requirements  of  their  dairy  animals  to  a  degree 
approaching  exactness. 

TABLE  62 
Butterfat-Barley  Eatio  in  California,  1910-1927 

(The  number  of  pounds  of  barley  equal  in  value  to  one  pound  butterfat) 


Year 

Jan. 

Feb. 

Mar. 

Apr. 

May 

June 

July 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

Aver- 
age 

1910 

25.7 

25.3 

21.5 

19.4 

21.4 

25.0 

28.4 

33.0 

31.2 

35.3 

36.6 

33.3 

28.0 

1911 

35.4 

31.8 

26.2 

22.3 

19.8 

16.8 

19.9 

21.7 

21.1 

22.8 

22.8 

21.5 

23.5 

1912 

23.2 

21.3 

18.9 

15.9 

15.3 

17.8 

20.0 

24.7 

29.5 

27.8 

28.9 

27.1 

22.5 

1913 

27.7 

26.6 

29.7 

24.8 

23.9 

24.4 

25.5 

27.0 

28.6 

27.0 

27.0 

25.1 

26.4 

1914 

24.3 

21.7 

21.1 

19.1 

23.9 

25.2 

24.4 

34.8 

34.9 

30.9 

34.1 

27.4 

26.8 

1915 

26.7 

22.7 

17.1 

18.3 

19.6 

23.2 

30.6 

29.2 

26.0 

27.4 

25.6 

24.4 

24.2 

1916 

25.0 

26.3 

21.5 

24.3 

22.4 

22.1 

22.8 

22.4 

23.6 

22.5 

22.9 

20.2 

23.0 

1917 

19.3 

20.2 

17.0 

18.9 

15.6 

15.7 

21.2 

23.4 

20.6 

21.8 

20.6 

21.5 

19.7 

1918 

21.7 

20.8 

15.6 

12.2 

12.6 

13.8 

19.0 

21.0 

23.9 

29.6 

26.8 

29.6 

20.6 

1919 

27.4 

27.9 

24.8 

28.5 

27.4 

22.5 

20.3 

21.4 

25.3 

21.6 

24.1 

25.4 

24.7 

1920 
1921 

23.8 
27.3 

20.4 
35.5 

20.3 
29.6 

18.3 
29.0 

19.3 
29.7 

18.4 
33.0 

20.7 
34.2 

22.4 
41.4 

27.8 
41.5 

27.4 
45.7 

29.5 
42.5 

27.8 
41.0 

23.0 
35.9 

1922 

31.1 

39.1 

29.3 

26.1 

25.3 

25.7 

38.8 

38.0 

46.2 

46.5 

40.6 

42.7 

35.8 

1923 
1924 

34.9 
37.9 

36.7 
37.0 

31.7 
33.3 

31.0 
25.0 

31.6 
30.0 

31.7 
28.5 

37.0 
21.7 

39.1 
18.3 

43.1 
17.6 

39.0 
18.1 

34.3 
17.3 

39.0 
20.2 

35.8 
25.4 

1925 

18.5 

19.0 

23.8 

25.3 

24.6 

29.4 

34.9 

36.5 

39.1 

40.7 

40.5 

36.4 

30.7 

1926 

31.0 

37.8 

38.5 

35.9 

38.0 

46.0 

36.6 

39.8 

43.4 

45.3 

41.4 

44.3 

39.8 

1927 

45.0 

41.2 

37.5 

34.7 

31.0 

27.1 

28.4 

Source  of  data:  Computation  by  author  from  table  35  (p.  80)  and  from  prices 
of  barley  reported  as  received  by  producers  in  California  on  the  15th  of  each 
month  in  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.     Crops  and  Markets. 


Concentrates — Barley. — Perhaps  it  can  be  said  that  no  concen- 
trate is  universally  used  by  dairymen  in  California.  One  of  the 
methods  by  which  production  can  be  increased  is  by  better  feeding 
practices.  That  barley  is  an  excellent  feed  for  dairy  cattle  has  been 
demonstrated  by  practice  and  in  experiments46  at  the  University 
Farm,  Davis.  Barley  prices  have  been  used  to  compare  with  those  of 
butterfat  because  of  their  continuity  and  also  because  of  barley's 
general  availability.  In  the  barley-butterfat  ratio  (table  62),  the 
prices  used  have  been  those  received  by  producers  for  both  butterfat 
and  barley.  The  relation  between  butterfat  and  barley  takes  into 
consideration  the  entire  state  and  relates  to  no  specific  section.  Since 
1910  the  trend  in  the  butterfat-barley  price  ratio  has  been  upward, 


46  Woll,  F.  W.,  and  E.  C.  Voorhies.     The  value  of  barley  for  cows  fed  alfalfa. 
California  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  216:  1-26.     1914. 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY 


117 


butterfat  increasing  more  rapidly  in  price  than  barley  (fig.  27).  The 
period  1915-1920  was  in  general  unfavorable  from  the  dairyman's 
standpoint.  Since  the  latter  year,  with  the  exception  of  the  period 
July,  1924-June,  1925,  the  ratio  has  been  favorable  to  the  dairyman, 
who  is  usually  a  purchaser  of  concentrates. 


Bai-)oy 
40 

30 


:4JMMWw 


I9IO        /I  fZ  /3  14         1915 


17         /8  19       /920       Zl         ZZ         Z3         Z4         I9Z5       Z«         Z7 


Yig.  27. — Barley-butterfat  ratio  in  California,  1910-1927.  The  pounds  of 
barley  required  to  purchase  one  pound  of  butterfat  has  increased  steadily  since 
1910.  The  trend  line  should  not  be  extended  beyond  1926,  as  there  is  no  founda- 
tion for  believing  that  this  upward  trend  will  continue.  Data  from  table  62. 
The  equation  for  the  line  of  trend  is  y  =  27A  +  0.699  x,  origin  1918. 

The  prices  of  barley  are  those  reported  to  have  been  received  by 
producers  and  the  majority  of  California's  dairymen  are  not  pro- 
ducers of  barley.  In  most  sections  of  the  state  barley  would  be  avail- 
able to  the  dairymen  at  prices  closely  correlated  with  those  listed. 
The  same  general  movement  between  butterfat  and  barley  prices 
characterizes  the  relationships  between  the  prices  of  the  former  and 
those  of  rolled  oats,  coconut  meal,  and  bran  for  the  period  1910-1926. 


LABOR 

General  Considerations. — While  the  item  of  labor  is  difficult  to 
appraise,  general  trends  in  wages  can  be  indicated.  Different  con- 
clusions can  be  drawn  from  data,  depending  upon  whether  a  dairy- 
man is  an  employer  of  labor  or  whether  the  manual  labor  is  done  by 
himself  and  his  family. 

California  differs  from  most  of -the  other  western  states  in  that  on 
many  of  the  dairy  farms  special  workers  ('milkers')  are  employed 
for  the  milking  of  cows.  In  the  other  states  of  the  west  which  compete 
either  directly  or  indirectly  with  California  in  milk  production  this 
condition  is  not  common  as  the  milking  is  done  by  the  regular  farm 
help  or  by  the  dairyman's  family.  This  latter  condition  prevails  on 
many  of  the  farms  of  this  state. 


118 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Wages  of  Milkers. — Milkers  are  employed  to  milk  'strings'  of 
cows  on  the  larger  dairy  farms,  a  'string'  varying  from  20  to  33  cows. 
The  milkers'  wages  listed  in  table  63  are  in  addition  to  board  and 
keep.  During  the  war  period  these  wages  increased  relatively  faster 
than  the  prices  received  for  dairy  products.  The  peak  was  in  1921, 
the  reaction  in  wages  not  being  felt  until  1922.  Since  1923  'real' 
wages  paid  to  milkers  have  been  higher  than  at  any  time  in  the  past 
for  which  data  are  available.  (Wages  can  be  exchanged  for  more 
physical  commodities  than  during  previous  periods.)  There  has  not 
been  an  over-supply  of  milkers,  since  the  professional  milker  in  this 
state  possesses  a  skill  which  the  average  farm  laborer  does  not  attain. 
In  many  sections  of  the  state  a  large  percentage  of  the  milkers  have 
been  of  foreign  origin  and  the  restriction  of  immigration  will  undoubt- 
edly cause  a  further  scarcity.  For  the  person  or  family  engaged  in 
doing  this  type  of  work  the  labor  income  undoubtedly  has  been  larger 
on  this  account. 

TABLE  63 


Maximum,  Minimum, 


and  Average  Monthly  Wages  Paid  to  Milkers  in 
California,  1906-1927 


Year 


Low, 

dollars  per 

month 


Relatives 
1910-14  =  100 


High, 

dollars  per 

month 


Relatives 
1910-14  =  100 


Average, 

dollars  per 

month 


Relatives 
1910-14  =  100 


1907. 


1910 

1911 

1912 

1913 

1914 

1915 

1916 

1917 

1918 

1919 

1920 

1921 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925 

1926 

1927  (through 
October) 


$30.00 
30.00 
35.00 
35.00 
35.00 
35.00 
35.00 
35.00 
35.00 
40  00 
40.00 
45.00 
60  00 
80.00 
90.00 
90.00 
70.00 
75  00 
80.00 
80.00 
80.00 

$70.00 


85.7 
85.7 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
114  3 
114  3 
128.6 
171.4 
228.6 


257. 
257. 
200 
214. 
228. 
228. 
228. 


$40.00 
40.00 
40.00 
40.00 
40.00 
40.00 
40.00 
45.00 
45.00 
50.00 
50.00 
55.00 
77.50 
100  00 
100.00 
110.00 
90.00 
95.00 
100.00 
100  00 
100.00 
$100.00 


95.2 

95.2 

95.2 

95.2 

95.2 

95.2 

95.2 

107.1 

107.1 

119.0 

119.0 

131.0 

185.0 

238.1 

238.1 

261.9 

214  3 

226.2 

238.1 

238.1 

238.1 

238.1 


$35.00 
35.00 
37.50 
37.50 
37.50 
37.50 
37.50 
40.00 
40.00 
45.00 
45.00 
50.00 
68.75 
90.00 
95.00 

100.00 
80.00 
85.00 
90.00 
90.00 
90.00 

$85.00 


90.9 

90.9 

97.4 

97.4 

97.4 

97.4 

97.4 

104.0 

104.0 

116.9 

116.9 

129.9 

178.6 

233.8 

246.8 

259.7 

207.8 

220.8 

233.8 

233.8 

233.8 

220.8 


Source  of  data:  Murray  and  Ready,  employment  agents  operating  at  San 
Francisco,  Stockton,  Sacramento,  and  Los  Angeles.  Board  and  room  are  in  addi- 
tion to  the  above. 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS  OF   THE   DAIRY    INDUSTRY 


119 


TABLE  64 


General  Trend  of 

Wages, 

(Relatr 

United  States  and  California 

/es  of  wages  1910-1914  =  100) 

,  1910-1927 

General  wage* 
level 

Farm  wages  t 

Year  and  month 

United  States 

California 

1910 

101 
104 
116 
132 
164 
190 
227 
207 
202 
220 
223 
228 
234 
237 
235 
233 

95 
98 
102 
104 
101 
101 
113 
140 
185 
220 
256 
151 
148 
165 
168 
169 
171 
160 
159 

99 

1911 

102 

1912 

102 

1913 

99 

1914 

99 

1915 

106 

1916 

108 

1917 

140 

1918 

179 

1919 

205 

1920 

247 

1921 

175 

1922 

174 

1923 

214 

1924 

165 

1925 

185 

1926 

182 

1927 — January 

172 

161 

July 

Sources  of  data: 

*  Weekly  earnings  of  New  York  factory  workers.  Weekly  earnings  in  1914 
are  considered  as  101.  Data  in  New  York  State  Col.  Agr.  Farm  Economics  (p. 
713).     July,  1927. 

t  Wages  of  farm  labor  is  per  diem  with  board.  Original  data,  Kaufman,  E.  E. 
California  crop  report,  1926.  California  State  Dept.  Agr.,  Special  Pub.  74  :  p.  5. 
1927.     Data  from  1923-1926  based  upon  July  1  data. 

General  Farm  Wages. — General  farm  wages  are  of  importance 
on  the  dairy  farm.  Incomplete  data  indicate  that  these  have  not  risen 
relatively  as  high  as  the  wages  paid  to  milkers  and  further  that  the 
decrease  has  been  more  rapid  since  the  peak  of  1921.  Indications  are 
that  general  farm  wages  are  relatively  higher  in  both  the  nation  and 
California  than  the  relative  wholesale  prices  of  agricultural  com- 
modities,47 including  dairy  products. 

Labor-Saving  Devices. — Dairy  farmers  have  been  greatly  inter- 
ested in  cutting  down  the  cost  of  labor,  since  it  constitutes  one  of 
the  largest  items  of  cost.  The  dairy  industry  has  not  adopted 
machinery  as  other  agricultural  industries  have,  because  milk  produc- 
tion has  to  do  primarily  with  human  beings  and  lower  animals.  Data 
from  milking-machine  firms  operating  in  California  indicate  that  there 
has  been  a  steady  trend  towards  the  adoption  of  mechanical  means  of 
milking  dairy  cows  in  certain  sections. 

47  Yearbooks,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  and  Monthly  Supplements  to  Crops  and 
Markets. 


120  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

The  other  and  probably  the  most  important  mechanical  invention 
in  the  dairy  business  is  the  cream  separator,  which  revolutionized 
the  skimming  of  milk  on  the  farm  as  well  as  in  the  large  centralized 
skimming  stations  and  factories.  Although  the  steam  boiler,  gasoline 
engine,  electric  motor,  sterilizer,  ice-refrigeration  plants,  silo,  feed 
cutter,  and  many  other  machines  are  standard  equipment  on  the  dairy 
farm,  human  labor  will  probably  always  loom  large. 

LAND    VALUES 

While  farm  land  values  are  most  difficult  to  measure,  the  general 
trend  in  this  and  other  states  may  be  of  interest  in  the  discussion 
of  costs.  Comprising  from  two-thirds  to  four-fifths  of  the  average 
farmer's  total  capital  investment,  his  farm  real  estate  forms  his 
largest  single  commitment.48  Since  1912  the  greatest  growth  in  the 
western  states  in  the  actual  value  of  both  improved  and  unimproved 
land  has  been  in  California.  The  period  since  1920  is  that  of  especial 
interest  in  connection  with  this  study  and  may  serve  as  a  partial 
explanation  of  the  more  pronounced  growth  of  the  dairy  industry 
in  certain  of  the  other  western  states.  Between  1920  and  1925  the 
absolute  value  per  acre  of  farm  real  estate  in  the  United  States 
decreased  22.8  per  cent.  All  of  the  western,  states  with  the  exception 
of  California  shared  in  this  decrease.  The  latter  gave  indications  of 
an  increase  of  9.6  per  cent  in  the  absolute  value  per  acre.  Whether 
the  reason  for  the  increase  was  due  to  an  increase  in  the  prices  of 
certain  California  crops  cannot  at  present  be  accurately  stated.  There 
is  an  indication  that  other  crops  seriously  compete  with  the  production 
of  butterfat  destined  for  manufacture  into  the  lower-priced  dairy 
products.  In  the  other  western  states  the  competition  evidently  has 
not  been  as  keen  as  it  has  been  in  this  state,  since  there  are  fewer 
crops  with  which  to  compete.  Some  of  the  more  important  crops  have 
been  low  in  price  and  farmers  in  many  instances  have  evidently 
turned  to  the  dairy  industry  as  one  of  those  least  disadvantageous. 
Several  of  the  Rocky  Mountain  states  have  been  forced  to  utilize 
alfalfa  which  was  formerly  shipped  out  and  it  has  been  actually  and 
relatively  cheaper  than  in  California. 

It  is  of  especial  interest  to  note  that  the  coast  region  from  Del 
Norte  to  San  Diego  counties,  southern  California  (with  the  exception 
of  Imperial)  and  the  upper  San  Joaquin  from  Merced  County  north 
were  the  areas  of  largest  increase  in  value.  These  are  among  the  most 
important  dairying  regions  of  the  state. 

48  Wiecking,  E.  H.  The  farm  real  estate  situation,  1926.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr., 
Dept.  Cir.  377:  1-18.     1927. 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY 


121 


STORAGE   OF    DAIRY    PRODUCTS 


COLD  STOKAGE  OF  BUTTER 


United  States. — Such  factors  as  price,  current  production,  esti- 
mates of  future  production,  etc.,  determine  the  amounts  of  butter 
which  are  placed  in  storage.  The  influence  of  a  rising  price  level 
can  be  detected  by  a  comparison  between  peak  storage  holdings  of 
butter  and  the  production  of  creamery  butter  from  1917-1920.  The 
peak  of  storage  holdings  has  constituted  from  5.4  per  cent  to  8.4  per 
cent  of  the  total  production  during  the  ten  years  1917-1926.  The 
percentage  relationships  between  the  peak  storage  holdings  (on  the 
first  of  the  month)  and  the  yearly  production  of  creamery  butter 
and  the  total  estimated  butter  production  have  been  as  follows: 


Year 

Cold-storage  holdings 

Percentage  of 

creamery  butter 

production 

Percentage  of 
total  butter 
production 

1917 

14.4 
12.5 
15.5 
13.4 
8.8 
9.7 
8.2 
11.5 
9.5 
10.3 

6.5 

1918 

6.6 

1919 

8.4 

1920 

7.5 

1921 

5.4 

1922 

6.3 

1923 : 

5.5 

1924 

8.0 

1925 

6  6 

1926 

7.2 

The  indices  of  seasonal  variation49  in  creamery  butter  holdings  for 
the  United  States  for  the  period  1917-1925  (indices  relate  to  first  day 
of  each  month)  are  as  follows: 


January   88.4 

February   61.2 

March  37.8 

April    18.4 

May  11.2 

June   22.6 


July    105.1 

August   175.9 

September   197.4 

October  188.3 

November    163.7 

December  129.9 


49  Seasonal  variations  computed  by  author  by  Falkner  method  as  described  in 
Mills,  F.  C.  Statistical  methods.  604  pp.,  87  diag.  Henry  Holt  and  Company, 
New  York.     1924. 


122 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Cold-storage  holdings  are  at  the  low  point  about  May  first  (fig.  28). 
Although  holdings  increase  during  May  the  bulk  of  the  movement 
into  storage  takes  place  during  the  months  of  relatively  high  pro- 
duction— June  and  July.  A  further  into-storage  movement  occurs 
during  August,  the  fourth  month  of  the  year  with  an  above-normal 
production.  From  September  (peak  of  holdings)  to  May,  during 
eight  months  of  the  year,  the  out-of-storage  movement  is  in  progress 
since  during  these  months  there  is  a  below-normal  production  of 
creamery  butter.  The  role  of  storage  in  equalizing  the  supplies  of 
creamery  butter  can  thus  be  readily  seen  by  comparing  production 
(table  15,  p.  47)  with  seasonal  indices  of  storage  holdings  in  the 
United  States. 


erf 

at  VaH 
a+ion 


Jan.  I         Man/  Mac//         July!         Sep/:/         Nov./ 

Fig.  28. — Seasonal  variation  in  cold  storage  of  butter  in  the  United  States 
(based  upon  data  from  September,  1916  to  August,  1926).  The  cold-storage 
season  for  butter  in  the  United  States  usually  commences  about  May  first, 
although  the  earliness  or  lateness  of  the  season  and  the  subsequent  amount  of 
production,  together  with  the  price,  determine  the  exact  time.  June  and  July 
are  the  months  of  heaviest  storage  receipts.  The  into-storage  movement  usually 
culminates  about  September  first,  butter  moving  out  of  storage  from  October  to 
April.    Data  from  page  121. 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY 


123 


TABLE  65 
Cold-Storage  Holdings  of  Creamery  Butter  in  the  United  States,  1915-1927 

(Thousand  pounds— i.e.,  000  omitted) 


Year 

Jan.  1 

Feb.  1 

Mar.  1 

Apr.  1 

May  1 

June  1 

1915 

, 

1916 

48,977 
46,134 
50,726 
43,910 
53,737 
58,682 
48,412 
26,819 
30,229 
65,694 
52,785 
34,355 

31,139 
30,474 
26,618 
36,777 
38,359 
41,486 
35,047 
16,122 
15,246 
45,748 
39,381 
17,967 

15,033 

16,952 

18,808 

24,191 

22,568 

27,103 

22,582 

8,910 

9,847 

28,789 

26,313 

8,086 

3,346 

6,805 

14,629 

11,909 

12,555 

14,732 

9,113 

4,824 

7,842 

10,875 

17,392 

3,033 

1,082 
3,607 
9,536 
9,659 
7,554 
7,712 
3,830 
3,248 
8,913 
3,739 
17,527 
3,432 

7,017 

1917 

9,953 

1918 

12,698 

1919  . .. 

29,435 

1920 

12,872 

1921 

21,682 

1922 

13,202 

1923 

10,112 

1924 

22,348 

1925 

13,036 

1926 

30,561 

1927 

25,340 

Year 

July  1 

Aug.  1 

Sept.  1 

Oct.  1 

Nov.  1 

Dec.  1 

1915 

68,578 
102,537 

88,992 

88,305 
123,546 
101,455 

82,838 
103,151 
101,774 
134,118 
109,075 
131,152 
145,147 

101,662 
105,836 
108,179 

99,334 
131,388 
115,558 

92,292 
112,039 
102,731 
156,440 
128,403 
138,151 
163,037 

99,450 

100,522 

109,154 

87,883 

121,816 

113,385 

90,116 

96,680 

96,117 

153,494 

114,172 

125,342 

92,719 
85,260 

100,115 
80,874 

100,474 

101,778 
77,983 
73,857 
76,472 

135,018 
94,916 

100,871 

71,849 

1916 

53,863 
49,982 
49,140 
90,158 
52,526 
61,991 
67,410 
62,768 
74,184 
63,687 
86,897 
90,116 

79,292 

1917 

79,928 

1918 

65,111 

1919 

73,654 

1920 

79,750 

1921 

65,129 

1922 

47,773 

1923 

51,508 

1924 

100,832 

1925 

74,754 

1926 

64,381 

1927 

Sources  of  data:  1915-1926,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Creamery  butter:  Cold  storage 
holdings,  United  States.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Yearbook,  1926:  p.  1077.  1927;  1927, 
U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Crops  and  Markets. 


TABLE  66 
Cold  Storage  Holdings  of  Butter  in  San  Francisco,  1918-1927 

(Thousand  pounds— i.e.,  000  omitted) 


Year 

Jan.  1 

Feb.l 

Mar.  1 

Apr.  1 

May  1 

June  1 

Julyl 

Aug.  1 

Sept.  1 

Oct.  1 

Nov.  1 

Dec.  1 

1918 

1,393 
2,005 
1,559 
1,361 
1,522 
2,015 
3,075 
1,026 
2,223 
2,393 

1,343 

1,947 
1,087 
1,059 
1,408 
2,042 
3,006 
1,299 
2,175 
2,712 

963 

1,588 

914 

867 

946 

1,630 

2,557 

1,172 

1,852 

2,493 

784 

1,351 

809 

424 

702 

1,156 

1,707 

808 

1,476 

538 

1919 

262 
475 
683 
497 
115 
340 
346 
814 
427 

77 
233 
616 
400 
175 
157 
356 
609 
222 

31 

312 
389 

62 
118 

24 
160 
251 

80 

6 

220 

212 

39 

5 

4 

83 

362 

222 

194 
264 
282 
396 
380 
604 
42 
724 
215 

1,035 
1,025 

866 
1,056 

881 
1,975 

522 
1,068 

860 

1,682 
1,402 
1,288 
1,469 
1,451 
2,646 
732 
1,836 
1,607 

912 

1920 

672 

1921     . 

414 

1922 

351 

1923 

687 

1924 

936 

1925 

653 

1926 

987 

1927 

Sources  of  data:  August  1,  1918-January  1,  1922,  information  to  author  from 
U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  (San  Francisco  Office).  February  1,  1922- 
1927,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  (San  Francisco  Office).  Butter,  cheese, 
eggs,  and  dressed  poultry.     (Mimeographed  daily  one-page  market  reports). 


124 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  67 
Cold  Storage  Holdings  of  Butter,  Los  Angeles,  1923-1927 

(Thousand  pounds— i.e.,  000  omitted) 


Year 

Jan.  1 

Feb.  1 

Mar.  1 

Apr.  1 

May  1 

June  1 

Julyl 

Aug.  1 

Sept.  1 

Oct.  1 

Nov.  1 

Dec.  1 

1923 

157 
389 
693 
898 
754 

272 
140 
366 
652 
526 

55 

85 
304 
277 
117 

60 
206 

55 
251 
150 

279 
1,012 

284 
607 
492 

766 
1,342 

673 
1,436 

846 

2,283 
2,514 
1,815 
2,873 
2,119 

2,624 
3,235 
2,533 
3,322 
2,708 

2,549 
3,189 
2,623 
3,127 
2,564 

1,875 
2,424 
1,939 
2,676 
2,244 

1,326 
1,872 
1,622 
2,253 

932 

1924 

1,238 

1925 

1,346 

1926 

1,678 

1927 

Source  of  data:  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  (San  Francisco  Office). 
Butter,  cheese,  eggs,  and  dressed  poultry.  (Mimeographed  daily  one-page  market 
reports.) 

Note. — Data  published  every  Monday  for  holdings  of  preceding  Friday. 
Figures  taken  on  date  nearest  to  the  first  of  the  month. 

California. — On  account  of  the  greater  production  during  the 
winter  months,  California  is  less  dependent  on  storage  supplies  than 
other  sections  of  the  country.  With  the  earlier  season  and  the  sub- 
sequent greater  production  the  low  point  in  storage  is  reached  about 
April  first  (in  1926  and  1927  March  first),  and  the  high  point  occurs 
earlier — August  first  (fig.  29).  While  Los  Angeles  data  are  not 
available  over  a  long  period,  indications  point  to  a  movement  similar 
to  that  at  San  Francisco. 


COLD  STORAGE  OF  CHEESE 

American  Cheese  in  the  United  States. — Storage  holdings  of 
American  cheese  differ  from  those  of  butter  in  that  there  is  far  less 
range  between  the  high  and  low  points,  which  is  partially  explained 
by  the  ripening  process  through  which  cheese  goes.  The  into-storage 
movement  usually  begins  in  May  when  production  is  increasing  and 
holdings  are  augmented  until  the  peak  is  reached  on  September  first. 
Beginning  in  October,  the  production  declines  rapidly  and  the  out-of- 
storage  movement  continues  during  the  period  of  low  production. 

California. — Owing  to  the  small  percentage  of  supplies  produced 
in  the  State,  the  storage  situation  is  prhaps  influenced  more  by  out- 
of-state  than  by  local  production.  Holdings  at  San  Francisco  show 
a  lag  behind  the  country  as  a  whole — the  low  point  (first  of  month 
considered)  being  June  first  and  the  high  point  October  first.  Data 
for  Los  Angeles  are  not  available  for  a  sufficient  period  to  indicate  a 
definite  variation. 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY 


125 


h      0)  i>   3 

3 


126 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  68 
American  Cheese:   Cold  Storage  Holdings  in  the  United  States,  1915-1927 

(Hundred  thousand  pounds — i.e.,  00,000  omitted) 


Year 

Jan.  1 

Feb.  1 

Mar.  1 

Apr.  1 

May  1 

June  1 

Julyl 

Aug.  1 

Sept.  1 

Oct.  1 

Nov.  1 

Dec.  1 

1915 

286 

241 

324 

313 

1916 

286 

189 

134 

84 

65 

73 

164 

316 

468 

496 

457 

371 

1917 

319 

221 

156 

98 

79 

116 

342 

676 

915 

907 

781 

752 

1918 

668 

563 

377 

280 

177 

204 

301 

488 

557 

421 

334 

256 

1919 

198 

155 

98 

68 

60 

125 

375 

626 

767 

814 

729 

625 

1920 

532 

436 

340 

234 

170 

135 

297 

515 

604 

550 

486 

399 

1921 

341 

250 

175 

143 

135 

178 

349 

413 

466 

452 

430 

341 

1922 

277 

214 

150 

107 

109 

155 

331 

466 

536 

495 

409 

373 

1923 

336 
496 
492 
585 
546 

266 
405 
416 
503 
461 

207 
352 
346 
426 
394 

145 

283 
277 
380 
352 

141 
262 
261 
356 
325 

175 

272 
296 
393 
358 

368 
452 
465 
541 
496 

558 
659 
666 
736 
671 

640 
764 
765 
813 

699 

624 
732 
786 

777 

579 
679 
719 
725 

551 

1924 

587 

1925 

665 

1926 

639 

1927 

Sources  of  data:  1915-1925,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  American  cheese  cold  storage 
holdings.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Yearbook,  1925:  p.  890.  1926;  1926-1927,  U.  S.  Dept. 
Agr.,  Crops  and  Markets. 

TABLE  69 

Indices  of  Seasonal  Variation  in  Cold  Storage  Holdings  of  American 
Cheese,  United  States,  September,   1916-August,  1926 

(Indices  are  for  first  day  of  each  month) 


January  1 103.0 

February  1 82.2 

March  1 60.5 

April  1 43.7 

May  1 40.3 

Junel 47.9 


Julyl 96.6 

August  1 142.5 

September  1 163.3 

October  1 157.6 

November  1 141.5 

December  1 121.0 


Source  of  data:    Calculations  by  author  based  upon  data  in  table  68.     Link 
relative  method  used  in  computing  above  indices. 


TABLE  70 
Cold  Storage  Holdings  of  Cheese,  San  Francisco,  1923-1927 


(Thousand  pounds— i.e., 

000  omi 

tted) 

Year 

Jan.  1 

Feb.  1 

Mar.l 

Apr.  1 

May  1 

June  1 

Julyl 

Aug.  1 

Sept.  1 

Oct.  1 

Nov.  1 

Dec.  1 

1923 

724 

841 

1,240 

877 
833 

562 
619 
998 
794 
644 

436 
503 
905 
563 
519 

337 
416 
687 
394 
398 

387 
278 
455 
376 
295 

525 
315 
416 
334 

471 

748 
668 
444 
449 
535 

1,006 

1,233 

979 

808 

737 

1,060 
1,475 

1,279 
904 
998 

858 
1,534 
1,297 
1,005 

924 

1,156 

1,730 

1,202 

933 

716 

1924 

1,419 

1925 

1926 

1,089 
905 

1927 

Source  of  data:  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  (San  Francisco  Office.) 
Butter,  cheese,  eggs,  and  dressed  poultry.  (Mimeographed  daily  one-page  market 
reports.) 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY 


127 


TABLE  71 
Col©  Storage  Holdings  of  Cheese,  Los  Angeles,  192, 

(Thousand  pounds— i.e.,  000  omitted) 


1927 


Year 

Jan.  1 

Feb.  1 

Mar.  1 

Apr.  1 

May  1 

June  1 

Julyl 

Aug.  1 

Sept.  1 

Oct.  1 

Nov.  1 

Dec.  1 

1923 

1,328 
1,421 
1,732 

786 
2,031 

1,555 
1,222 
1,362 
577 
1,759 

1,206 
1,049 
1,077 
384 
1,481 

865 
605 
745 
303 
1,171 

669 
389 
763 
262 
872 

477 
596 
810 
640 
755 

888 
1,501 
1,143 
1,112 
1,037 

1,241 
1,851 
1,109 
1,622 
1,343 

1,770 
2,097 
1,307 
1,828 
1,556 

2,103 
2,092 
1,051 
2,014 
1,557 

2,062 
2,015 
1,016 
2,242 

1,884 

1924 

1,998 

1925 

940 

1926 

2,275 

1927 

Source  of  data:  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  (San  Francisco  Office.) 
Butter,  cheese,  eggs,  and  dressed  poultry.  (Mimeographed  daily  one-page  market 
reports.) 

Note. — Data  published  every  Monday  for  holdings  of  preceding  Friday. 
Figures  taken  on  date  nearest  to  the  first  of  the  month. 


CONDENSED  AND  EVAPOEATED  MILK 

While  the  storage  of  butter  and  cheese  are  taken  for  granted,  it 
is  not  generally  recognized  that  large  stocks  of  both  condensed  and 
evaporated  milk  are  usually  held  by  manufacturers  (table  72).  The 
peaks  and  depressions  do  not  occur  with  as  much  regularity  as  in  the 
case  of  butter  in  storage  although  the  high  points  during  the  seven 
years  1920-1926  have  generally  occurred  between  July  first  and 
October  first.  The  depressions  usually  take  place  before  the  flush 
of  the  milk  season  in  the  country,  e.g.  from  February  to  April.  Gen- 
erally higher  prices  prevail  for  milk  destined  for  condenseries  when 
stocks  are  low  and  vice  versa. 

TABLE  72 

Total  Manufacturers'  Stocks  of  Condensed  and  Evaporated  Milk  in  the 

United  States  on  the  First  of  Each  Month,  1920-1927 

(Thousand  pounds— i.e.,  000  omitted) 


Month 

1920 

1921 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925 

1926 

1927 

122,917 
106,986 
136,530 
237,005 
226,382 
218,349 
243,571 
245,915 
275,156 
315,381 
302,800 
274,681 

238,894 
180,745 
135,967 
103,699 
118,318 
178,367 
232,558 
235,056 
174,254 
177,672 
172,410 
188,709 

189,355 
176,440 
155,662 
141,883 
145,779 
173,827 
187,518 
161,856 
158,368 
122,833 
86,788 
69,042 

67,780 
79,772 
83,815 
101,000 
126,530 
170,583 
190,343 
194,350 
228,348 
225,940 
211,334 
191,149 

191,418 
155,349 
138,362 
127,464 
142,838 
199,986 
288,459 
282,431 
242,635 
202,977 
180,054 
159,593 

123,428 
91,205 
90,869 
110,565 
140,899 
193,307 
187,636 
194,865 
212,903 
207,263 
185,624 
165,682 

156,272 
136,015 
118,346 
115,417 
128,496 
153,710 
228,156 
242,102 
241,547 
207,422 
174,909 
137,532 

101,320 

80,228 

70,327 

66,610 

83,104 

48,771 

229,433 

277,379 

300,135 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

December 

Source  of  data:  1920-1925,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Total  manufacturers'  stocks  of 
condensed  and  evaporated  milk  in  the  United  States  on  the  first  of  each  month. 
U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Yearbook,  1925:  p.  1077.  1926;  192(3-1927,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr., 
Bur.  Agr.  Econ.,  Monthly  condensed  and  evaporated  milk  report  (mimeographed 
one-page  report). 


128  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


DOMESTIC    TRADE    IN    PRODUCTS    OF    THE    DAIRY    INDUSTRY 

DALEY  CATTLE 

While  the  exchange  in  dairy  products  is  obvious,  there  are  perhaps 
few  who  appreciate  the  magnitude  of  the  dairy-cattle  trade  in  this 
state.  Importations  of  dairy  cattle  into  California  have  been  more 
or  less  limited  to  pure-bred  animals  in  the  past  and  these  have  con- 
tributed largely  to  the  producing  abilities  of  the  grade  animals  in 
the  state. 

Inter-  and  Intrastate  Shipments. — With  the  increase  of  California's 
population,  together  with  the  difficulties  and  expenses  involved  in 
raising  calves  on  dairy  farms  supplying  market  milk,  has  come  an 
importation  of  both  grades  and  pure-breds  from  other  states.  During 
1926  almost  seventeen  thousand  dairy  cattle  were  shipped  into  the 
state;  the  shipments  originated  in  twenty-seven  different  states  and 
one  foreign  country.  Arizona,  Oregon,  Idaho,  Utah,  Washington, 
Colorado,  Wisconsin,  Texas,  Canada,  and  Nevada  contributed  the 
largest  numbers  (table  72). 

Shipments  into  Los  Angeles  County. — Approximately  two-thirds 
of  these  animals  were  required  for  replacements  and  additions  to  the 
herds  of  Los  Angeles  County.  A  situation  such  as  exists  in  this 
county  is  not  unique  to  California;  similar  conditions  have  been 
observed  in  populous  areas  of  both  other  states  and  Europe.50 

A  realization  of  the  needs  of  the  producers  of  market  milk  in 
sections  with  a  deficiency  of  feed  (in  relation  to  the  number  of  dairy 
cattle)  by  dairymen  in  areas  where  the  reverse  is  true  might  prove 
to  be  mutually  advantageous.  Health  regulations  are  becoming  in- 
creasingly important  throughout  the  State.  Los  Angeles  County  has 
recently  passed  an  ordinance51  requiring  that  all  cattle  shipped  in 
(except  for  slaughter)  be  free  from  tuberculosis  and  in  addition 
originate  in  herds  with  less  than  10  per  cent  reactors. 

One  or  the  limiting  factors  in  supplying  the  requisite  number  of 
animals  from  within  the  state  has  been  the  prevalence  of  tuberculosis 
in  many  sections.  (See  fig.  44,  p.  177).  In  addition  to  being  free 
from  tuberculosis,  animals  destined  for  market-milk  production  in  the 
more  populous  centers  must  possess  a  high  potential  producing  ability. 

50  Laur,  Ernst.  Die  Betriebsformen  der  Landwirtschaft.  [Types  of  farm 
management.]     xii  +  287  pp.     Verlagsbuchhandlung  Paul  Parey,  Berlin.     1920. 

51  Los  Angeles  County  Ordinance  1415. 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY 


129 


TABLE  73 

Importations  of  Dairy  Cows  into  California,  1926 


Destinations  by  counties 

Sources  by  states  or  country 

33 

23 

3 

1 

4 

13 

67 

141 

7 

124 

49 

410 

333 

11,341 

1 

51 

1 

66 

2 

14 

196 

14 

8 

120 

21 

3 

1,182 

61 

565 

78 

29 

175 

28 

1 

1,069 

2 

83 
62 
46 
134 
197 
46 
17 

4,145 

4 

Amador 

Canada 

556 

Colorado 

767 

Connecticut 

3 

El  Dorado 

2,313 

1 

1 

Humboldt 

Iowa 

49 

Imperial 

3 

Inyo 

Kern 

277 

Lassen 

Missouri 

14 

Los  Angeles 

Montana 

249 

Madera 

1 

Marin 

535 

3 

Merced 

11 

New  York 

6 

Monterey 

North  Dakota 

10 

Ohio 

3 

Placer 

3,584 

3 

Riverside 

Texas 

590 

Utah 

1,736 

San  Benito 

1 

1,277 

San  Diego 

679 

Total    . 

San  Joaquin 

San  Mateo 

Santa  Cruz 

Shasta 

Siskiyou 

Solano 

Sonoma 

Tehama 

Ventura 

Yolo 

Yuba 

Total 

16,822 

16,822 

Source  of  data:   California  State  Dept.  Agr.,  Sacramento,  Calif. 


130 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  74 


Origin  of  Dairy-Cattle  Shipments  into  Los  Angeles  County,  1925-1927 

(Numbers  represent  animals  originating  in  state  or  county  listed) 


State 

1925 

1926 

County  (California) 

1925 

.    1926 

Arizona 

3,672 
1,387 
572 
227 
1,384 
49 
77 

2,958 

2,317 

1,953 

1,301 

1,113 

1,045 

338 

307 

132 

70 

35 

24 

20 

Tulare 

854 

948 

Idaho 

Yolo 

756 

Colorado 

Kings 

391 
427 
306 
15 
195 
103 
256 
357 
391 
145 
181 
57 
25 

643 

Oregon 

Imperial 

381 

Utah 

380 

Washington 

Ventura 

340 

319 

Montana 

Fresno 

314 

Texas 

Kern 

278 

Wyoming 

217 

Riverside 

229 

219 

208 

26 
40 

1 

202 

112 

93 

Humboldt 

89 

78 

59 

11 

55 

27 

451 

60 

50 

23 

4 

7,652 

11,613 

4,302 

5,730 

1927 


Interstate 

Intrastate 

805 

426 

1,106 

487 

1,173 

456 

601 

562 

819 

443 

1,171 

684 

1,493 

917 

1,664 

289 

Total 


January... 
February 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 


1,231 
1,593 
1,629 
1,163 
1,262 
1,855 
2,410 
1,953 


Source  of  data: 
stock  Inspector. 


Furnished  by  L.  M.  Hurt,  D.V.M.,  Los  Angeles  County  Live- 


BUL.  437]  ECONOMIC   ASPECTS  OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY  131 


DOMESTIC  TRADE  IN  BUTTER 

United  States. — Distribution  of  human  and  dairy-cattle  population 
is  such  that  the  semi-perishable  and  canned  products  of  the  dairy 
industry  (butter,  cheese,  and  condensed  milk)  loom  large  in  trade 
channels.  These  can  be  produced  in  the  localities  possessing  the  great- 
est possible  advantages  (or  the  least  possible  disadvantages)  for  the 
product  in  question.  While  California  and  the  other  western  states 
place  butter  on  middle  western  and  eastern  markets  at  times,  and 
shipments  are  made  from  middle  western  and  eastern  states  to  the 
west,  for  all  practical  purposes  the  eleven  western  states  can  be  con- 
sidered an  entity.  In  the  eleven  western  states  California  with  its 
large  urban  population  is  the  dominant  factor  in  demand. 

California. — Complete  statistics  on  interstate  movements  of  butter 
from  and  to  California  are  not  available  over  long  periods  of  time. 
From  references  in  the  press  and  from  the  comments  of  long- 
established  wholesalers  such  shipments  have  occurred  since  the  fifties. 
That  shipments  of  butter  from  eastern  points  at  times  before  the  war 
played  a  considerable  role  on  California  markets  can  be  readily  seen 
by  observing  the  quotations  on  eastern  butter  appearing  in  the  press. 
Actual  statistics  on  the  origin  of  butter  supplies  on  the  San  Francisco 
market  are  available  since  1921,  while  similar  material  for  Los  Angeles 
is  complete  since  1925.  The  percentage  of  receipts  on  the  San  Fran- 
cisco market  originating  in  California  has  been  decreasing  during  the 
five  years  1922-1926  (fig.  30).  The  largest  percentage  of  receipts 
originating  in  other  states  has  in  the  past  generally  occurred  from 
May  to  October,  while  California  offerings  are  generally  the  largest 
from  March  to  June,  inclusive.  March  and  April  are  sub-normal 
months  for  the  producton  of  butter  in  the  country  as  a  whole  and 
are  the  last  months  of  the  out-of-storage  movement.  During  May,  on 
account  of  the  early  season  in  California,  a  considerable  volume  of 
butter  is  being  placed  in  storage  in  San  Francisco,  while  in  the  United 
States  in  its  entirety  the  storage  movement  is  just  gaining  headway. 
Again,  the  season  is  earlier  in  the  dairy  sections  of  California  than 
it  is  in  most  sections  of  the  western  states. 

Receipts  at  Los  Angeles  and  San  Francisco. — The  largest  portion 
of  the  out-of-state  butter  on  the  combined  San  Francisco  and  Los 
Angeles  markets  originates  in  the  states  west  of  the  100th  meridian — 
Idaho,  Montana,  Oregon,  Utah,  and  Washington  (1926)  (figs.  33  and 
34).    However,  there  are  indications  on  the  San  Francisco  market,  at 


132 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


least,  that  supplies  of  butter  from  the  Mississippi  Valley  States  of 
Illinois,  Iowa,  Minnesota,  and  Wisconsin  have  been  increasing  since 
1921.     The  imports  from  Canada  during  1925  were  also  considerable. 


Fig.  30. — Keceipts  of  butter  at  San  Francisco,  1926-1927.  There  has  been 
a  distinct  upward  trend  in  butter  receipts  originating  outside  the  state  at  San 
Francisco.  Keceipts  originating  in  the  state  have  shown  a  downward  trend,  which 
would  be  more  pronounced  if  the  butter  manufactured  in  San  Francisco  could  be 
added  in  the  diagram.     Data  from  table  75. 


The  origin  of  butter  supplies  on  the  Los  Angeles  market  are  of 
interest  both  on  account  of  the  large  number  of  states  contributing 
to  the  supply  and  on  account  of  the  large  amount  originating  outside 
of  the  state  (fig.  31).  In  1926,  sixteen  states  outside  of  California 
sent  butter  to  the  Los  Angeles  market  (in  1925,  nineteen). 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY    INDUSTRY 


133 


cd 

-I 
cd 

CD 

3 

0 

3 

? 

-i 

3 

2' 

o 
-1 

CD 
cd 
3 

3 

3 

n 

? 
p" 

o 
to 

os 

b 

3 

1 
0 

3 
3" 

3 

2' 

e 
a 

CD 
-1 

n 

CD 

3 

3 
3 

3r 
? 

o 

o 

H 

o 

CD 

3 

rt- 

5 

5 
L 
? 

o' 

a 
o 
M 

CD 
CD 
3 
n- 

3 
3 

EL 
? 

3 

P* 

e 

O 

-3 
> 

3 

r 

o 
to 

3S 

33 

Iff 

3    TO 

«  s- 

d 

3 

3- 

0 
i 

3 
3 

CD 
< 

P 

P 

3 

CD 

?; 

p 

E 
if 
p 

B 

c 
3 

3 

o 

3' 

i 
i 
5 

3 

— 
p 

o 

California 

Arizona 

Colorado 

CO 

i 

CO 

1,742 

88.7 

2,055 

83.1 

1,594 

91.3 

2,247 

73.6 

1,827 

84.6 

1,883 

64.5 

00 

CO 

h-     CO 

CO    OS 

CO 

©to         »«». 
os  co  »—  en 

p 

13 

1,582 

93.6 

1,524 

94.6 

1,685 

94.2 

1,597 

83.9 

1,714 

85.8 

1,685 

71.8 

>*». 

M    C 

3    Cn 

Ol    tO    si 
OS    Cn    *». 

"*. 

CD 

cr 

2,152 

94.8 

1,959 

98.1 

1,926 

97.6 

2,014 

96.6 

2,348 

87.5 

2,120 

84.3 

to 

CO 
00 

to 

co   rf«.   co 

rfs. 

CO 

co 
Cn 

to 

© 
en 

p 

2,619 
•    99.1 
2,406 
96.5 
2,613 
91.4 
2,788 
97.9 
2,644 
86.0 
2,641 
87.2 

to 

OS 

OS 

to 

CO 

co   to 

OS 

Cn 

to 
to 

sj 

Cn 

•a 

o  -*°  S  .M  £  .M  S  .M  S  .M  ®  .M 

CO     ■         Cn    •         CO     •         l^.    ■         (*».     ■         —J 

MlCOOOlbOHOOlOlOM 
Cn           -^           o           00           to           ►-» 

to 

CO 

Cn 

CO 

eo 

00 

■co 
CO 

p 
*< 

2,742 

88.7 

2,802 

75.9 

2,697 

86.9 

2,843 

76.5 

2,920 

61.9 

3,190 

64.0 

to 

SO 

to 

o 

OS 

en 

to    to    O    Cn    -J 
CO    to    O    ^J    CO 

1 

Ch 

g 

3 

CD 

§  -M  S  .M  S  P  S  !°  S  .M  £  m 

co    ■       Os    •       OO    •       Cn    •       os    ■        m 
CO            l^.            CO             l—            to            OO 

to 

OS 

o 

Cn 

to                     tj    H 

-<i         to   os  cn   *-  to 

os  to  os  os  cn  o>  to 

CO 
*s 

2,257 

83.8 

2,299 

80.0 

2,283 

81.6 

2,932 

54.7 

2,699 

715 

2,627 

60.0 

to 

OS 
CO 
CD     ' 

to    CO 
-I    o 

o 

►*>.    to 

Itfc 

en    Cn    co 

O    co    co 

CO 

to 

CO 

2,034 

84.2 

1,863 

83.0 

1,952 

80.3 

2,034 

69.4 

2,362 

71.9 

1,897 

66.8 

to 

CO 
OS 

to 

h-    *. 

CO 

o   ■-» 

Co 
to 

eo 

cn   >*». 
*-  en 

OS 

co 

OO 

CO 
CD 

■o 

OS     K*\     OS     to     00     m     OO     tmmk     *vj     k  <s 

CO    -^    CO    -M    tO    .  '      CT>    -         *-    -M 

>«*■    •       to    •       OO    ■       CO    •       to 

COcOsJCnOOostO^—tO 

H-               *.               -^               H-               OO 

_to 

CO 

00 

co 

00 

OO     *■ 

to 

to 
to  to 

►-    00 

to 

OS 

o 

CD 

-j   -       Cn  .       oo   -       co   -       ^1  - 

OS     ■          1— *     ■         *q     •          OS     •          00 

MOlOOMOOMtJlOOOl 
-^            O           CO           en            to 

OS 
OS 

^1 

o 
to 

CO 
os    Cn 

to 

© 
SI 

CO 

■si 

to 

o 

<: 

~-J»— iOStoO°toOO._tCO|^ 
OS    -          CO    -          ©    -          CO    -          CO    . 

—J     ■          1— i     ■          1—     ■          CO     •          -J 

cococo-aoooco*>.cDoo 
O            Cn            to            CO           CO 

Vj 

CO 

o 

h-    to 
~1    OS 

eo  to 
to  o 

en 

o 

Cn 

CO 
CO 

0 

CD 

cn  .     o  .      m  r  oi  .      o  . 

OS    ■       -J    •       >*>.    ■       cn    ■       co 
OOOCnO"—    en    *-    h-    *- 

K            W             M            M             O) 

to 
SI 

OS 

o 

to 

_tO                      tO             _>->                      © 
CO                     co                    "w    w    H    M           Vj 
toco            ©    os    Cn    Co    Co    co    CO            O 

H 
o 

p. 

O 

to 

© 

00 

3 

to 

©    00 

to   *. 

to  eo 

en 

o 

O    CD 

—2- 

to  > 

§  s 

•o  o 

o  w 


J.,  i — »  i — i 


s  i 

o       ^> 

3     io 


134  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Thousands 

400& 
KOOO 


/OOO 
900 

eoo 

TOO 

eoo 

500 
40O 


&&<i&ip+s 

-from    Ocrfs/ds 

California.  ^ 

/  V\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

}f     R&CGfp-} 

^    -from    Cafiforn/a.  J 

I9Z5 


I9Z& 


/ezy 


Fig.  31. — Keceipts  of  butter  at  Los  Angeles,  1925-1927.  While  receipts  of 
butter  are  available  at  Los  Angeles  only  since  1925,  evidence  points  to  an  upward 
trend  in  out-of-state  recipts  and  a  downward  trend  in  amounts  originating  in 
the  state.    Data  from  table  76. 


Season 
o/  Var- 
tert-/on 

/SO 


r'9/4 

&..^ 

™ 

fc*.^ 

/ 

^V**" 

5 

^       4 

i 
t 

.           *•> 

\> 

/ 

W^* 

'\ 

t 

\X 

fc?**i. 

1/ 

\ 

^               j 

.          f 

^~/9/3 

*», 

*m 

~~r 

May> 


July  t 


Aug.  I 


Fig.  32. — Seasonal  variation  in  butter  receipts  at  San  Francisco,  1913,  1914, 
and  1925.  Eeceipts  of  butter  at  San  Francisco  give  evidence  of  a  considerable 
change  over  a  period  of  years.  The  peak  of  receipts  is  received  later  in  the  year 
than  formerly.  This  condition  has  been  brought  about  by  the  increase  in  receipts 
from  outside  of  the  state,  which  come  later  in  the  year.  Some  influence  may  have 
been  exerted  by  butter  manufacture  in  San  Francisco.     Data  from  table  78. 


Bul,  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY 


135 


136 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA— EXPERIMENT 


STATION 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY 


137 


c 
i 

c 

•' 
| 
j 

( 

d  ! 

I 

>     : 

1     i 

i  j 
I  \ 
1 

9     : 

i 
| 

5 

o 

? 

■s 

T> 

3 
-»• 

5 

3 

? 

3 

5' 

O 
9) 

B 

1 

■s 

3 

3 
f 

3 

2' 

O 

o 

•i 

r 

o 

0 

3a 

1 
(J 

3   | 
3  ' 

9 

3 

f 

3 

< 

1 

I 

> 

3 

li 

1 
V 

i 

i 

[• 

B 
3 

S" 

1 

5    c 

1   1 

- 
I 

f  f  \ 

j 

?! 

5 

5 

2  0 

1 

>  0 

2.  8° 

■^     St 

OQ 

a 
EG 

2,910 

66.0 

3,358 

60.6 

2,956 

54. p 

CO 
CO 

en 

.    00 

to    CO    OS 

CO 

eo 

00  : 
OS 

to 

4?   to 
to  en 

to 

0 

eo 

4*. 

So 

p 

2,864 

64.8 

2,623 

62.0 

2,574 

56.0 

to 

OS 

to 

CO 

OS    OS 
Cn    ^l 

CO 
OS     4- 

-q    Cn 

to    >f» 

OS 

to 

OS 

en 

cr 

2,792 

76.5 

3,710 

60.6 

3,138 

59.1 

CO 

o 

4»-   4"- 

CO    4". 

Cn 

fc 

00 

OS 

CO 

88 

to 
"to 

4* 

CO 

eo 

►1 

3,597 

79.7 

3,964 

54.8 

3,836 

61.3 

CO 

'co 

OS 

4* 

^1  — 1 

OO     H- 

to 
Cn 
to 

to 

4*.    •<! 
1—    rfk. 

to 

^-    *.>*>■    en    Cn    jo 

O    ■       to    •       CD 

O    to    4»-    -<1    oo    *- 

co           en           Cn 

en 
lo 

Cn 

*-    to 
co    Cn 
OS    Cn 

CO 
Cn 

& 

to 

co 
eo 

OS     *- 
tO     1—     CO     CO 

OS    CO    CO    0 

00 

OS 

K 

«<5 

4*      L£fc      4*      .£,.      4*.      ^ 

en  -      CO  i^   to  . 

O    ■       co    ■       co 
►-    cd    en    os    to    rf*. 

#k         «sl         oa 

1o 

OS 

to  to 

to    O    P— 

0  H*  1— 

to 

CO 

OS 

OS 

Cn 

co    en           os 
0    to    1—    ** 

1 

C°      4*.      4*      4*.      4*.      hU. 

CO   -       Cn  -       4*  , 
4».    •       to    ■       Cn 

to  m  oo  cn  oi  m 

to           OO           00 

to 

en 

00 

en    1— 

CD 

OS 
CO 

to 

CO 

tO     H- 

CO    M          "co 
to    <3>          en 
CO    -J    00    to 

3,575 

54.8 

3,305 

47.6 

3,631 

45.4 

CO 

co 

§ 

0  ^J 
to   0 

OO 

to 

cn   *-   co 

M    M    S 

0              "en 

Cn    Cn           -a 

Cn   CD   to   to 

> 

J 

to    •        ■■*   •        Cn 

4>>      O*.      00     OO     OO     CO 

cn          co          oo 

CO 

oo 

CO 

4^     £ 
to    00 

CO 

4-             CO 
co    Cn    to    1— 

en  to 

CD    OS 

0 

CO 

IV 

•d 

*    CO    g    CO 

:      ■      co   •      o 
co    to    -q    -~1 

4»-          l-> 

CO 

to 

to 

>*- 

►—tO             l-> 

to   to          en 

OS    O    h-    Cn 

to 

00 

8 

5  to 

CO    ^1 

s 

CO 

0 

0 
3- 

1    &  -w  8  » 

:       •       O    •       en 

OS    ►—    h-    to 
CO             OS 

eo 
O 

CO 

to  00 

CO      H- 

^J 

00 
eo 

to 

OS 

< 

Cn    co    Cn    Ka 
O    •        OS 

»*«.>&.  to   to 
o         o 

CO 

1 

CO    Cn 
0    Cn 

Cn 

OS 

I    £ 

O 
OS 

CO                          OS 

OS                  to 

4-    4^    ro    co 

0 

CD 

0 

x  £  X  " 

O   -        CO. 

O    •        CO 
O   co   ^4   to 

CO              rfk. 

s 

eo 

»—                to 

******                             K-                             CO                     to 
oso^oeno                       T-i-qo 

tO*»tOCn             tO             M    M    CO             tO     l->    ©    4».     >—    *- 

^CllOMHMOHOaCnHOKOKOOiIkH 

9 

t 

s 

o 

■- 

~ 

CO 

-J 

1*. 

CO 

4- 

- 

to 
00 

-I 

s 

0 

0  0 

0  o  9 

§  B  o 

«  3  a 

o  w    o 

2-  F  ~ 

J..  I_»  <° 

b  tO    ^5 

-  CO  J35 

o  Ui 

§  jL  ► 

5  to   O 


138 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


During  the  past  five  years,  the  amount  of  butter  shipped  out  of 
the  state  has  been  at  times  considerable,  amounting  to  3,873,827 
pounds  in  1926, 52  a  large  part  of  this,  however,  being  exported  to 
foreign  countries.  During  1926,  receipts  on  four  markets — New  York, 
Chicago,  Philadelphia,  and  Boston — from  California  amounted  to 
289,002  pounds,  of  which  286,947  pounds  were  unloaded  in  Phila- 
delphia. Shipments  to  eastern  points  usually  occur  during  the  spring 
months  when  the  production  exceeds  the  requirements. 


TABLE  77 
Monthly  Receipts  of  Butter  at  San  Francisco,  1910-1927 

(Thousand  pounds — i.e.,  000  omitted) 


Aver- 

Year 

Jan. 

Feb. 

Mar. 

Apr. 

May 

June 

July 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

Total 

age 

1910... 

802 

916 

1,549 

1,704 

1,668 

1,705 

1,097 

1,285 

793 

703 

969 

731 

13,922 

1,160 

1911.... 

1,036 

935 

1,915 

2,191 

2,176 

2,949 

1,873 

2,009 

1,547 

1,509 

1,738 

1,115 

20,993 

1,749 

1912.... 

1,408 

1,456 

5,146 

2,500 

2,547 

2,391 

2,903 

2,364 

1,984 

2,023 

1,770 

1,680 

28,172 

2,348 

1913... 

1,726 

1,454 

1,964 

2,711 

2,703 

2,106 

1,711 

2,594 

1,479 

1,538 

1,433 

1,703 

23,122 

1,927 

1914... 

1,932 

1,690 

2,107 

2,811 

2,435 

1,964 

1,872 

1,766 

1,330 

1,464 

1,315 

1,735 

22,421 

1,868 

1915... 

1,594 

1,554 

2,576 

2,996 

3,155 

2,775 

3,599 

2,591 

2,024 

1,921 

1,732 

1,832 

28,349 

2,362 

1916... 

1,791 

1,766 

2,469 

3,404 

3,259 

3,066 

2,212 

2,284 

2,141 

1,881 

1,856 

1,900 

28,029 

2,336 

1917.... 

1,388 

1,668 

2,378 

3,045 

3,355 

2,685 

1,857 

1,731 

1,626 

1,729 

2,011 

1,557 

25,030 

2,086 

1918... 

2,278 

1,851 

2,564 

3,129 

2,771 

2,170 

1,549 

1,500 

1,278 

1,684 

1,538 

1,332 

23,644 

1,970 

1919... 

1,267 

1,480 

2,014 

2,792 

2,955 

2,457 

2,179 

1,752 

1,090 

1,339 

1,460 

1,332 

22,117 

1,843 

1920... 

1,488 

1,665 

2,174 

3,141 

2,767 

2,197 

1,744 

1,789 

1,661 

1,800 

1,565 

1,572 

23,563 

1,964 

1921... 

1,652 

1,441 

1,982 

2,345 

2,256 

2,306 

2,359 

2,710 

2,064 

2,538 

2,370 

1,718 

25,741 

2,145 

1922... 

1,742 

1,583 

2,152 

2,619 

2,731 

2,742 

2,177 

2,257 

2,034 

2,228 

1,862 

1,789 

25,916 

2,160 

1923.... 

2,055 

1,524 

1,959 

2,406 

2,462 

2,883 

2,616 

2,224 

1,878 

1,906 

1,656 

1,942 

25,511 

2,126 

1924.... 

1,594 

1,684 

1,925 

2,613 

3,498 

2,698 

2,552 

2,283 

1,952 

1,806 

1,704 

2,102 

26,411 

2,201 

1925... 

2,247 

1,597 

2,014 

2,788 

2,920 

2,843 

2,829 

2,932 

2,034 

2,254 

2,130 

2,175 

28,763 

2,397 

1926... 

1,827 

1,714 

2,348 

2,644 

2,597 

2,920 

2,604 

2,699 

2,362 

2,491 

1,667 

1,730 

27,603 

2,300 

1927... 

1,883 

1,685 

2,120 

2,641 

2,925 

3,190 

2,919 

2,627 

1,897 

Sources  of  data:  1910-1911,  computations  by  author  based  upon  data  in  weekly 
issues  of  Pacific  Dairy  Review,  San  Francisco,  Calif.  1912,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr. 
Receipts  of  butter  at  the  seven  leading  markets  of  the  United  States.  Yearbook, 
1912:  p.  687.  1913.  1913,  ibid.,  1913:  p.  469.  1914.  1914,  ibid.,  1914:  627-628. 
1915.  1915,  ibid.,  1915:  p.  525.  1916.  1916,  ibid.,  1916:  p.  677.  1917.  1917, 
ibid.,  1917:  p.  728.  1918.  1918,  ibid.,  1918:  p.  608.  1919.  1919-1926,  ibid., 
1926  :  p.  1071.  1927.  1927,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  (San  Francisco 
Office)  Review  of  the  butter  market  at  San  Francisco  (mimeographed  one-page 
report). 


Total  receipts  at  San  Francisco  have  shown  only  a  slight  upward 
trend  since  1910  (table  77),  as  large  amounts  of  butter  have  been 
manufactured  within  the  city,  and  in  addition  it  is  probable  that 
supplies  destined  for  the  East  Bay  cities  of  Alameda  County  were 
formerly   routed   through   San   Francisco   more   frequently   than   at 


52  Frey,  J.  J.     Statistical  report  of  California  dairy  products,  1926.     California 
State  Dept.  Agr.,  Statistical  Pub.  71:  p.  14.     1927. 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY 


139 


present.  Records  at  Los  Angeles  would  undoubtedly  show  a  phenom- 
enal upward  trend,  but  unfortunately,  data  were  not,  until  1925,  col- 
lected or  compiled  by  either  public  or  private  agencies.  It  is  probable 
that  data  for  Los  Angeles  are  not  complete,  owing  to  the  difficulties 
involved  in  obtaining  information  on  truck  shipments. 

Seasonal  Variation  in  Butter  Receipts,  San  Francisco. — Receipts 
for  San  Francisco  have  been  changing  seasonally  (fig.  32,  p.  134). 
The  variation  for  the  period  1912-1925  is  shown  in  table  78.  The 
greatest  changes  have  occurred  during  March,  April,  June,  July, 
August,  and  September.  In  general  the  tendency  has  been  to  reduce 
the  relative  receipts  during  the  first  four  months  of  the  year  with 
the  exception  of  February,  while  the  opposite  tendency  is  evident 
from  June  to  December,  with  the  exception  of  the  two  months  of 
August  and  November.  From  the  evidence  at  hand  it  would  appear 
that  the  tendency  for  June  and  July  to  show  higher  indices  is  due 
to  the  fact  that  larger  amounts  of  butter  enter  the  state  during  these 
months. 

TABLE  78 
Seasonal  Variation  in  Butter  Eeceipts,  San  Francisco,  1912-1925 

(Normal  month  =  100) 


Year 


Jan. 


Feb. 


Mar. 


Apr. 


May 


June 


July 


Aug. 


Sept. 


Oct. 


Nov. 


Dec. 


1912. 
1913. 
1914 
1915. 
1916. 
1917. 
1918. 
1919. 
1920 
1921 
1922 
1923 
1924 
1925 


85  4 
85.4 
84.3 
83.7 
85.9 
79.7 
78.1 
80.3 
82.4 
80.9 
78.9 
81.1 
80  9 
81.0 


72.3 
72.3 
75.4 
79.7 
81.8 
82.8 
80.1 
81.1 
78.7 
77.2 
75.2 
73.6 
73.4 
73.5 


120.9 

120.9 

119.4 

118.5 

116.7 

118.1 

115.6 

105.9 

106.9 

99.2 

94.2 

92.9 

92.3 

90.7 


134.1 
134.1 
136.8 
144.3 
148.0 
151.1 
147.9 
149.8 
140.0 
127.7 
124.5 
121.9 
120.4 
120.6 


133.5 
133.5 
132.0 
132.1 
144.0 
145.7 
142.6 
135.9 
138.3 
135.7 
132.4 
129.6 
134.1 
134.3 


118.5 
118.5 
117.1 
116.2 
119.6 
121.0 
118.5 
120.0 
123.2 
120.9 
127.3 
127.5 
127.1 
127.3 


92.2 
92.2 
91.1 
90.4 
92.7 
93.8 
105.0 
105.2 
108.0 
107.2 
112.4 
117.8 
117.5 
117.6 


117.2 
117.2 
115.8 
109.4 
87.4 
87.8 
86.0 
87.1 
89.4 
107.9 
107.2 
105.5 
105.1 
105.3 


73.0 
73.0 
78.2 
77.6 
79.7 
80.6 
79.8 
80.8 
83.0 
91.1 
92.1 
93.5 
93.3 
93.4 


84.1 
84.1 
83.1 
82.5 
84.7 
85.6 
86.4 
87.5 
89.8 
88.1 
90.1 
88.2 
88.0 


84.8 
84.8 
83.8 
83.2 
75.0 
76.7 
84.5 
89.9 
81.8 
80.3 
80.3 
78.6 
78.4 
78.5 


84.0 
84.0 
83.0 
82.4 
84.5 
77.1 
75.5 
76.5 
78.5 
83.8 
84.8 
89.8 
89.5 
89.7 


Source  of  data:  Computations  by  the  author  based  upon  table  77.  Seasonal 
variation  computed  by  method  described  in  University  of  Illinois,  Bur.  of  Business 
Research.  The  method  of  analyzing  business  data.  University  of  Illinois,  Bur. 
of  Business  Research,  Bul.  8:  25-46.     1925. 


Daily  Variation  in  Receipts. — A  study  of  daily  receipts  might  be 
of  value  since  an  even  distribution  throughout  the  week  might  make 
for  a  more  desirable  product.  If,  as  receipts  increase  these  could  be 
available  on  days  which  are  now  low  in  total  receipts,  present  facilities 
might  be  better  utilized. 


140 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  79 

Daily  Variation  in  Eeceipts  of  Butter  in  San  Francisco,  1924-1926;  and  in 

Los  Angeles,  1925-1926 

(Normal  day  =  100) 


San  Francisco 

Los  Angeles 

1924 

1925 

1926 

1925 

1926 

100.8 
111.0 

97.2 
94.2 
87.2 
108.6 

102.6 
106.2 
94.8 
96.0 
82.8 
117.6 

105.0 
102.7 

86.5 
101.6 

93.0 
111.2 

71.7 
82.5 

129.0 
79.7 
89.6 

147.5 

79.9 

Tuesday 

Wednesday...- 

82.0 
129.3 
68.4 

91.1 

149.3 

Source  of  data:  Computations  by  author  based  upon  data  in  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr., 
Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  (San  Francisco  Office)  Butter,  cheese,  eggs,  and  dressed  poultry 
(mimeographed  one-page  daily  report).  In  making  calculations  only  ' normal ' 
weeks  were  considered.  Weeks  containing  holidays,  together  with  those  which 
might  be  affected  by  holidays  in  previous  or  subsequent  weeks  have  not  been 
utilized. 

At  San  Francisco,  Wednesday  and  Friday  have  been  below  normal 
in  butter  receipts  for  each  of  the  three  years  1924,  1925,  and  1926 
(table  79).  The  San  Francisco  variation  might  be  somewhat  different 
if  the  butter  manufactured  in  the  city  could  have  been  included  in 
the  calculations.  Los  Angeles  receipts  showed  considerable  variation 
during  1925  and  1926.  Saturday  proved  to  be  the  day  of  high  receipts, 
followed  by  Wednesday.  On  the  remaining  four  days,  receipts  were 
below  normal  for  both  years.  The  collection  of  data  for  receipts  on 
the  Los  Angeles  market  is  gradually  being  improved.  In  the  future 
information  on  receipts  should  be  more  accurate  than  it  has  been  in 
the  past.  Prices  showed  but  little  variation  between  the  various  days 
of  the  week. 


DOMESTIC  TBADE  IN  CHEESE 

Interstate. — The  concentration  of  cheese  production  makes  for  a 
trade  of  considerable  magnitude.  A  study  of  the  receipts  of  the 
larger  markets  together  with  the  production  statistics  of  the  country 
reveals  the  fact  that  Wisconsin,  and  to  a  lesser  extent  New  York, 
dominate  the  cheese  trade  of  the  country.  While  the  eleven  western 
states  are  practically  self-sufficient  in  butter  production,  evidence 
based  on  data  for  1925  and  1926  indicates  that  large  amounts  of  cheese 
are  shipped  into  the  area  from  middle  western  and  eastern  states,  and 
in  addition  considerable  amounts  have  been  imported  through  Pacific 
ports. 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY 


141 


Shipments  into  California. — This  state  has  been  dependent  upon 
outside  sources  of  supply  for  a  considerable  period  (figs.  35  and  36), 
as  is  shown  by  reference  to  shipments  from  other  states  contained  in 
the  Statistical  Reports  of  the  California  State  Board  of  Agriculture 
up  to  1918.  On  the  basis  of  data  collected  by  the  Bureau  of  Agri- 
cultural Economics  and  the  California  State  Board  of  Agriculture, 
receipts  of  cheese  (including  amounts  manufactured,  interstate  ship- 
ments, and  foreign  importations)  amounted  to  31,172,214  pounds  in 
1926,  of  which  8,269,127  pounds  were  manufactured  within  the  state. 


Thousands 


Fig.  35. — Receipts  of  cheese  at  San  Francisco,  1922-1927.  Out-of-state 
receipts  (exclusive  of  foreign  imports)  give  evidence  of  an  upward  trend  at  San 
Francisco.  Receipts  from  California  have  been  decreasing  rapidly.  Data  from 
table  80. 

Receipts  during  the  past  five  years  indicate  that  both  quantitatively 
(except  for  1926)  and  relatively  the  amounts  received  from  within 
the  state  have  steadily  decreased.  Idaho,  Oregon,  and  Wisconsin 
supplied  the  largest  amounts  of  cheese  to  the  combined  Los  Angeles 
and  San  Francisco  markets  in  1926,  and  indications  since  1921  point 
to  a  steady  and  continuous  increase  in  the  percentage  of  cheese 
shipped  by  these  three  states  (fig.  37).  California  cheese  apparently 
does  not  take  well  on  certain  markets  of  the  state  owing  to  (1)  poor 
reputation  of  the  cheese  in  the  past,  (2)  small  amount  manufactured, 
(3)  lack  of  standardization  of  this  small  amount,  and  (4)  lack  of 
advertising.53 

53  Letter  from  C.  A.  Phillips  (Dairy  Industry  Division,  U.  of  C.)  to  author. 
December,  1926. 


142 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Thousands 

Of* 

Rounds 


/9Z& 


/Bze 


/9Z7 


Fig.  36.— Eeceipts  of  cheese  at  Los  Angeles,  1925-1927.  The  amounts  of 
cheese  shipped  to  Los  Angeles  from  California  points  is  small  compared  with  that 
originating  outside  of  the  state.  From  the  data  available  indications  are  that  the 
seasonal  variations  are  far  greater  for  the  latter  shipments  than  for  the  former. 
Data  from  table  81. 


BUL.  437] 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY 


143 


s 

(D 
H 

2 
a 

e* 
0 

3 

O 
p_ 

o" 
-1 

3 
5' 

a 
o 

J? 

CD 

-1 
a 
I 
3 

■» 

I 
i 

1. 

0 

CD 

to 

OS 

s 
s 

© 

a 

5, 
3" 

3 

3 

CO 

to 

J? 

a 

s 

s 
If 

i 

? 

3 

to' 

o 
to 

4- 

5? 

s 

3 

? 

Si 

f 

o 
to 

CO 

7 
s 

3 

I 

3 

5' 

CO 

to 
to 

H 

o 

? 

T 

1 

( 

< 

0 

3 

5' 
5 

3| 

35' 

o 

i. 

3 

3 

p 

B 
J 

5' 
5. 

o 

3 

New  York 

Utah 

9 

* 

r 

3 

-1 
P 

P 

IB 
s  §  ° 

< 

3 

J- 

5' 
IS 

3 

5' 

o 

c- 
p 

V 
o 

0 

©_ 
o 

p 

Co 

o 

>  o 

CO 
P 
a> 

503 
43.5 

588 
43.0 

725 
34.3 

973 
42.8 

850 
13.6 

708 
21.8 

00 

Cn 

o 

to                              : 
Cn           to    Cn    -~J    : 

co  Oi  s  to  o  : 

to 

to   : 

to                   P-> 
4>.    ,_i    to    h- 

en  >*»■  os  os 

e-i 

SB 

634 
41.3 

571 
45.5 

944 
36.3 

534 
27.0 

530 
18.3 

703 
10.9 

Cn 
co 

© 

to 

i—   *.   co   : 

oo  to   to 

o  i—  to 

CD 

*1 

a1 

tO             t-i             CO             CO    ,_,     >*»             -J 
*»             CD             **             tO    «        1—             O 

~4    •        OO    •         OS    •         O    •         —J    ■         !*>. 
OSOOt-ii—    H-K-Ot*»-CnOOs^I 

OS             P-»             OO             OS             »*>■             CO 

00 

os          en  m  co  : 
CO    CO    o    to    oo 

to 

OS     K- 

en  oo  co 

Cn 
Cn 

S 
H 

688 
35.9 

858 
494 

700 
26.6 

667 
30.7 
1,146 
24.1 
1,121 
21.2 

OS 

to                  CO 

CO           to    H-    to 

CO     M     »     H     O 

_ 

OS    ►-> 
CO    CO 

to 
-a 

> 

907 
38.5 
1,054 
35.3 
1,046 
21.6 
1,083 
21.6 
1,267 
25.3 
1,284 
22.0 

to 

OS 

to 
en  ~4 

CO 

OS    CO 

OS     tK 

„ 

HO    Cn 
M    m   -g    Cn 

CO 

p 
<< 

963 
39.6 
1,172 
33.3 
1,227 
20.1 
1,197 
19.9 
1,630 
23.6 
1,369 
18  5 

OS 

CO 

° 

I—                           OS 

Cn            Cn    O    CO 

H    O    H    (B    tn    M 

Cn 

to 

CO    H    to 

-a  cn  os 

CO 

oo 
Cn 

c 

0 
CD 

901 
33.9 
1,360 
18.6 
1,579 
11.7 
1,613 
11.4 
1,517 
14.1 
1,622 
14.7 

Cn 

CO                  cn 

tO                Ol     ^     M 

co    to    en    O    Cn 

M 

OS 

OS 

to 

M     tf>.    00 

to 

1,148 

29.4 

1,237 

22.6 

1,103 

15.4 

1,703 

10  3 

1,298 

13.0 

1,357 

18.0 

to 

CO 
OO 

co                to 

*-            to    «©    ~J 

O    M    Cn    h    in 

CO 

to   oo  en 

OS 

co 

877 
43.3 

985 
27.5 

837 
16.1 
1,035 
15.0 
1,177 
10.6 
1,122 
25  0* 

~J 

£                to 

O             tO    !*>•    00 

O    CO    CO     ►—    CO    CO    CO 

to 

co   co 
CO    CO    oo 

to 

cn 

g5 

N*             *•*             tO             tO 

CD          O          -^J          os          Cn 

00    •        CD    *        CD     ■        CD     ■         OO 

MtOMHWMCDMOlO 

CO         o         •—         to          o 

oo 
to 

CO 

to 

©    CO 

to    Cn 

to  ^i  to  to 

CO 
O    4>. 

CD    *- 

-4 

OS 

o 

l-»             1—             tO             tO    ,_,    tffc 

OS          OS          to          >**.  -      to 
OS    •       OO    •       ~J    •       *-    •       Cn 

to          CO          *>          cn          i— 

OS 
to 
to 

Ilk    to    »    CO    * 

o  to  to  ©  en 

|— 

© 

o 
< 

i_.            *-           CO           u   M    w 
:       O          ~J          to          O  -      cn 

00    ■       OS    •       OS    ■        o    •       --J 

CD            O           O           Cn            CO 

OO 

en 

CO 

>-»               to 

I**             tO.    OS    CO 

-_r     —    —    -  i     -. 

to 
to  en 

to 

CO    00    Cn    H 

00 

0 

p 

*-t5>-'^to^co£coco 

05.CO-tO.l-i.~J- 
Cn    •       OO    •       •*»■    •       -J    •       h- 

cococncn^jootooto^j 
O           Cn           to           i—           OO 

}o 
Cn 
CO 

o 

to                  CO                                                     to                  M 

Os          co  "►-    cn                                     to   oo   to         1— 
coenooi^to          m   ^   io          tocncototo 

H^ONOo<ocna<oi(ii^tooDiiioiu 

o 

CO 
CO 

00 

to 

Ot 

© 

oo 

to 

to. 

to 

© 

© 

a> 

o 
-J 

CO 

to 

CO 

to 

© 
to 

oa 

r 

^  -1 

2.2 
1% 

!z| 

o 

ca 

o 

O 

w 

H 

r/j 

H 

> 

H 

H 

S 

er 

O 

n 

•^ 

3 

a- 

> 

3 

O 

o 

o 

O 

w 

Si 

s 

i 

J> 

to 

H 

\o 

o 

os 

to 

*• 

o 

g 

ti 

1 

I-1 

> 

o 

o 

n 

1 

to 

-*J 

H 

CD 

Co 

§ 

fed 


144  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY 


145 


t- 
a 

B 

B 
r 
t 

c 

( 

j 
1 
I 

d  i 

: 
l    : 

: 
: 

; 

! 

■5  i 

c 
I 

1 

3 

3 

3 

3 

5* 

s 

o 
3S 

1 

i 

( 

? 

1 

3 

1 
3 

3 

? 

g 
3 

3' 

a 

o 

-3 
5 

3 

r 

o 

S3 
3S 

•- 
( 

i 

< 

i 

3 

<  - 

n 

s 

3      « 

| 

!  j 

i  i 

5.  ! 
!,  - 

5     : 

I 

5 
1 
> 

3 

=!  < 
>  J 

1  ! 

1 

z|  i 

t    \ 
- 

a   : 

! 

i 

S  ! 

! 

j  1 

LI 

F 
M 

i  ! 

H 

0       ) 

California 

Arizona 

Colorado 

Idaho 

Illinois 

QQ 

P 

0) 

877 
18.2 

851 
20.3 

874 
32.7 

00 
Cn 

1 

»*.            00 

H-      OS      00 

CO                      l-i 
CO    *>.             -4 

M   cn   to   to 

Ch 
P 
p 

523 
18.5 

599 
27.5 

677 
19.6 

en 

CO 
CO 

© 
to 

tO    OS    CD    © 

to 

00    >*». 

H    0O    Cn 

OS 

en 

CD 

569 
32.2 
1,128 
18.4 

900 
23.4 

to 

OO 

to 

en 

H     bO     tO     M 
►—    OS    ©    CO 

4*.                     tO 
OS    OS    OO             © 
OS    to    00    ©    OO 

p 

CO             O    -        OO 

CO    ■        to    •       CO 
en    os    *-    ©    -J    Cn 

K-             OO             CO 

to 

o 

to 

© 

>4- 

p->  to 

to   to   co  to 

>*-    Cn    os    >-»    cn 

„ 

K-    ©    rfk    H-    to 

M    CO    tO     H    o 

963 
19.3 
2,022 
12.9 
1,029 
30.6 

to 
© 
to 
to 

Cn 
© 
to 

Cn    i—    •** 
Cn    tf*.    k-    k- 

^ 

i->    Cn    h-           to 
tO    ©    ©    ►->     OS 

M     H     00     tO     O 

p 

1,642 
8.2 
1,519 
13.3 
1,299 
25.8 

en 

CO 

CO 
CO 

en 

to 

h-l    tO    ^) 

*».  to  ►— 

to  to 

CD     rf»- 

Cn                   to 

©   £  ©   to 

C-( 

g 

CD 

1,427 

28.5 

1,719 

14.1 

1,435 

17.5 

5 

CO 
Cn    Cn 

OS     CO 

CO 

OO    >fc.     Cn 
^1    OS    CD 

© 

►*».                to 

tO     «     M     <k 

^j    to    ©    CO 

Ch 
<< 

1,009 

16.9 

1,335 

19.3 

1,448 

14.0 

CO 
CO 
Cn 

OS 

to 

Cn    h-    4- 

to  ©  en  © 

co               to 

co  co  co  cn  i—  en 

M    00    O    1^    M    N 

C 

era 

1,137 

20.8 

1,579 

15.9 

1,085 

26.9 

en 
-J 

CO 

CO 

© 

CO 

en  co  co   -j 
•f.  ^a  ©   i— 

to 

© 

co                to 

M    00    «J    h    Cn 
-a   ~j   co   ©   to 

Dp 

CD 

1,042 
12.1 
1,188 
18.6 

00 
00 

Cn 
to    *-            CO    CO    K- 

oo  ©  rfk.  ►-  en  co 

to               to 

CO    H-           to 
CO    -si    I—    *- 

o 

867 
18.2 

980 
17.2 

CO 

00 

© 

•** 

CO 
to           OS 

en   co   co   co 

to                  *- 
Cn    1—            os 

©  ~j  en  © 

3 
o 
<: 

889 
16.5 

933 
31.6 

CO 

co 

co 

to 

© 

to    CO    H- 
©   ©   *-   *»• 

to               to 
-^i   — I          co 

©   cn    to    en 

0 

fD 

o 

11,900 
18.3 

15,060 
17.1 

cn 
© 

tO                         CO                                                             **.                  to 

en           i->    Cn  ">->                  >-»                                to^oscn 

Cn^j^cocotototOH-to                 coos^^ioo^i 

0>tDO«30>*.OOOltO*HsICO||kM    tO    tO    O 
CO 

H 
o 

co 

CD 

o 
>*- 

- 

© 

CO 

CO 

CM 

Ot 

tc 

s 

CO 

© 

© 

GO 

© 

p 

to 

00 

tO 

CO 

cn 

C;> 

© 

Cn 

^J 

O   O 
ci- 

146  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT    STATION 


FOREIGN    TRADE    IN    DAIRY    PRODUCTS 

CALLFOKNIA'S  SHAKE  IN  FOKEIGN   TEADE 

The  Pacific  Coast  produces  a  small  fraction  of  the  dairy  products 
of  the  country,  yet  the  exports  from  this  section  for  the  past  two 
years  (1925-1926)  have  accounted  for  approximately  one-third  of 
the  total  value  of  exports  of  dairy  products  from  the  United  States. 

Condensed  and  evaporated  milk  constitute  the  largest  amounts 
of  exports  both  from  the  country  and  the  Pacific  Coast.  Unlike  the 
United  States  as  a  whole  during  the  past  few  years,  California  ports 
have  exported  increasingly  large  amounts  of  these  products  (table 
82).  Almost  50  per  cent  of  these  were  consigned  to  the  Philippine 
Islands  during  1925  and  1926 ;  China  accounted  for  fully  20  per  cent, 
and  the  remainder  was  absorbed  largely  by  the  areas  bordering  the 
Pacific  Ocean. 

With  the  exception  of  a  very  few  years  during  the  past  decade, 
butter  exports  from  California  ports  have  been  greater  than  the 
imports.  This  would  be  especially  evident  if  the  exports  to  Hawaii 
were  added  to  the  totals  shown  in  table  82.  During  the  two  years 
1925-1926,  approximately  50  per  cent  of  the  water  shipments  from 
San  Francisco  and  Los  Angeles  have  been  consigned  to  Hawaii,  where 
butter  from  the  mainland  competes  directly  with  that  from  New 
Zealand.54  The  latter  country  has  an  advantage  in  freight  rates  over 
Pacific  Coast  ports.  Mexico,  Central  America,  the  west  coast  of  South 
American  countries,  the  Philippine  Islands,  China,  and  Japan  obtain 
considerable  quantities  of  the  product  exported  from  California. 
Competition  must  be  and  is  upon  the  basis  of  quality  on  account  of 
the  higher  prices  of  the  California  product.  A  considerable  part  of 
the  export  butter  is  packed  in  tins,  on  account  of  the  great  distances 
of  shipment  and  climatic  changes.  Since  California  butter  on  account 
of  its  superior  quality  has  been  able  to  compete,  especially  in  South 
America,  with  other  butter,  in  spite  of  the  differential  between  the 
world  and  domestic  prices,  it  seems  reasonable  to  expect  a  more  favor- 
able position  for  the  California  product  should  world  prices  improve. 
Imports  of  butter  through  California  ports  have  fluctuated  greatly, 
although  since  1920  they  have  appeared  with  considerable  regularity. 

54  Imports  of  butter  into  Hawaii  from  New  Zealand  (thousand  pounds)  : 
1923,  732;  1924,  1,269;  1925,  1,235;  1926   (11  months),  954. 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY 


147 


TABLE  82 

Expoets  of  Butter,  Cheese,  Condensed  and  Evaporated  Milk,  Powdered  and 
Dried  Milk,  California  Customs  Districts,  1900-1926 

(Thousand  pounds— i.e.,  000  omitted) 


Butter 

Cheese 

Evaporated  and 
condensed  milk 

Powdered  and 
dried  milk 

Year 
ending 
June  30 

k 

03 
.*«  O 

a  J 

co 

el 
1° 

Total 

1+2 

h 
a 
.«-  o 

CO 

o3 

as 

co 

Total 
4+5 

a 

03 

co 

03 
dl 

CO 

Total 
7+8 

d 

03 

~  22 

as 

CO 

as 

m'P 

U  o 

-a  ^3 
co 

Total 
10+11 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

1900 

625 

426 

383 

586 

304 

165 

201 

220 

73 

76 

85 

139 

272 

47 

105 

1,638 

2,099 

763 

292 

194 

698 
1,016 

869 
1,167 
1,044 
1,033 

840 
1,031 

8 
7 
5 
5 
5 
6 
4 
15 
2 
6 
5 
5 
9 
* 
* 

10 

13 

22 

306 

8 
15 
30 
38 

1 
37 
49 
45 
43 

633 

433 

388 

591 

309 

171 

205 

235 

735 

81 

90 

143 

280 

47 

105 

1,648 

2,112 

785 

597 

202 

713 
1,046 

907 
1,168 
1,081 
1,082 

885 
1,074 

591 
634 
562 
614 
506 
498 
319 
327 
284 
271 
263 
217 
253 
250 
243 
277 
285 
385 
702 

755 
548 
523 
523 
404 
312 
269 
259 
242 

10 
14 
10 
9 
6 
7 
5 
8 
7 
3 
8 
6 
10 
* 

9 
8 
13 
16 

25 
37 
50 
61 

600 
647 
573 
623 
513 
505 
323 
335 
291 
274 
270 
223 
263 
250 
243 
286 
298 
398 
719 

781 
585 
574 
584 
405 
351 
314 
300 
275 

887 
1,950 
2,326 
1,487 
1,116 
6,146 
4,049 
3,488 
2,517 

2,154 
8,079 
6,536 
16,833 
16,634 
18,321 
25,653 
30,613 
29,522 

87 
117 
101 

* 

86 

76 

137 

260 

90 
229 
232 
193 
9 
244 
315 
291 
305 

973 
2,067 
2,427 
1,487 
1,116 
6,231 
4,125 
3,625 
2,777 

2,244 
8,308 
6,768 
17,026 
16,643 
18,564 
25,967 
30,904 
29,827 

224 

37 

632 

567 

574 

65 

80 

31 

1 
1 

1901 

1902 

1903 

1904 

1905 

1906 

1907 

1908 

1909 

1910 

1911 

1912 

1913 

1914 

1915 

1916 

1917 

1918 

Calendar 

years 
1918 

1919 

1920 

224 

1921 

37 

1922 

663 

1923 

40 
45 
41 
33 

568 

1924 

575 

1925    .. 

65 

1926 

1 

81 

*  Statistics  for  Southern  California  not  segregated. 

Sources  of  data:  1920-1925,  Dept.  of  Commerce,  Commerce  and  Navigation 
of  the  United  States,  1920-1925.  1926,  information  furnished  to  author  by  the 
Dept.  of  Commerce. 


Cheese  exports  from  the  ports  of  the  state  have  always  been  of 
minor  importance.  Excluding  Hawaii,  which  received  approximately 
350,000  pounds  during  1925  and  1926,  China,  the  Philippine  Islands, 
Mexico,  and  Central  America  took  the  bulk  of  the  remainder. 


148 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Cheese  imports  through  the  state's  ports,  on  the  other  hand,  are 
of  considerable  magnitude.  Before  the  war  these  had  reached  over 
three  million  pounds  in  one  year.  Since  1919  they  have  steadily 
increased,  until  in  1926  the  pre-war  level  was  again  reached.  The 
imports  originate  in  the  main  in  Europe,  particularly  in  Italy  and 
France.  Undoubtedly  the  foreign  population  of  the  larger  centers 
contribute  appreciably  to  this  demand  for  foreign  cheese. 


TABLE  83 

Imports  of  Butter  and  Butter  Substitutes,  Cheese  and  Cheese  Substitutes, 
California  Customs  Districts,  1900-1926 

(Thousand  pounds— i.e.,  000  omitted) 


Butter  and  butter  substitutes 

Cheese  and  cheese  substitutes 

Year  ending  June  30 

San 
Francisco 

Southern 
California 

Columns 
1+3 

San 
Francisco 

Southern 
California 

Columns 

4+5 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

1900 

632 

805 

881 

1,083 

1,326 

1,344 

235 

1,900 

1,665 

1,529 

2,359 

2,407 

2,682 

1,567 

3,290 

2,812 

1,855 

376 

76 

62 

1 

69 

196 

962 

1,193 

2.015 

2,307 

2,107 

15 

6 

647 

1901 

811 

1902. 

881 

1903 

10 

50 

26 

10 

209 

126 

160 

121 

178 

290 

314 

494 

153 

53 

16 

3 

2 

4 

9 

22 

97 

203 

371 

439 

545 

1,083 

1904 

1,376 

1905 

1,370 

1906.    . 

1 

1 

245 

1907    . 

2,109 

1908 

1,791 

1909.    . 

1,689 

1910 

2,480 

1911 

19 

19 

2,585 

1912 

2,972 

1913 

57 

1,638 

248 

57 
1,638 

248 

1,881 

1914 

3,784 

1915 

2,966 

1916 

1,909 

1917 

392 

1918 

1,024 
489 

1,024 

489 

79 

Calendar  years 
1918 

64 

1919 

5 

1920 

378 
2,158 
620 
536 
84 
606 
114 

378 
2,158 
620 
750 
84 
607 
114 

77 

1921..  .. 

219 

1922 

1,059 

1923 

214 

1,396 

1924 

2,386 

1925 

1 

2,746 

1926 

2,652 

Sources  of  data:  Dept.  Commerce,  Commerce  and  Navigation  of  the  United 
States,  1900-1925.  1926,  information  furnished  to  the  author  by  the  Dept.  of 
Commerce. 


BUL.  437]  ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF   THE  DAIRY   INDUSTRY  149 

The  question  of  increasing  the  exports  of  dairy  products  to  the 
Orient  is  one  which  apparently  interests  producers  and  manufacturers 
of  the  entire  Pacific  Coast.  Thus  far  the  condensed  and  evaporated 
milk  trade  has  been  augmented  but  that  in  butter  and  cheese  remains 
small.  Difficulty  in  obtaining  supplies  of  fresh  milk  in  the  Orient 
unquestionably  has  been  responsible  for  a  large  proportion  of  the 
former  trade.  Evidence  points  to  the  inclusion  of  canned  milk  in 
the  diet  of  some  of  the  peoples  of  the  Orient.  Any  increase  in  the 
exports  of  either  butter  or  cheese  to  the  Orient  will  materialize  only 
through  the  medium  of  education  as  to  the  value  of  these  products 
and  the  cultivation  of  a  liking  for  them.  In  addition,  prices  cannot 
be  prohibitive  in  the  countries  to  which  they  are  sent.  If  a  trade 
should  develop,  the  Pacific  Coast  states  would  have  to  meet  severe 
competition  from  Canada,  Australia,  and  New  Zealand  in  supplying 
these  products. 


IMPOETS  AND  EXPOETS  OF  DAIEY  PEODUCTS,  UNITED  STATES 

The  foreign  trade  of  the  United  States  in  dairy  products  has  not 
been  extensive  during  the  past  few  decades  (fig.  38).  In  1880  the 
exports  of  butter  amounted  to  40  million  and  those  of  cheese  to  125 
million  pounds.  By  1890  butter  exports  had  dropped  to  about  30 
million  and  cheese  to  95  million  pounds,  while  in  1900  butter  exports 
had  decreased  10  million  pounds  and  cheese  had  fallen  to  less  than 
50  million.  During  the  pre-war'  period,  1909-1913,  the  country  ex- 
ported an  average  of  2,479,000  pounds  of  butter  or  about  0.15  per  cent 
of  the  approximate  production  during  those  years.  During  the  same 
period  cheese  showed  a  net  import  balance  of  an  average  of  41,204,000 
pounds  or  approximately  12.5  per  cent  of  the  estimated  domestic 
production  of  the  period.  Net  exports  of  condensed  and  evaporated 
milk  during  the  pre-war  period  amounted  to  14,354,000  pounds  or 
less  than  3  per  cent  of  the  total  production.  With  the  destruction  in 
Europe  and  the  subsequent  diminution  in  the  number  of  dairy  cattle, 
prices  abroad  for  dairy  products  were  exceptionally  high  in  1918  and 
1919,  at  the  close  of  the  war.  Net  exports  of  butter  reached  25  million 
pounds  in  1919  (or  about  1.6  per  cent  of  the  domestic  production) 
and  cheese  exports  for  1918  amounted  to  a  net  total  of  almost 
41,000,000  pounds  (or  about  10  per  cent  of  the  total  production). 
Condensed  milk  exports  increased  at  a  phenomenal  rate  during  the 
war  on  account  of  the  demands  for  army  use,  reaching  the  peak  in 
1919  when  the  net  total  amounted  to  836,000,000  pounds  (over  40  per 


150 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


cent  of  the  production  for  the  year).     Since  1919  there  has  been  a 
pronounced  tendency  for  a  decline. 

With  the  falling  of  world  prices  in  1920  the  American  butter 
price  was  the  best  obtainable,  and  butter  began  to  flow  into  the 
country.  Imports  have  exceeded  exports  in  every  year  since  1919 
with  the  exception  of  1922.  Cheese  imports  have  shown  an  increasing 
tendency  to  rise  during  the  six  years,  1921-1926. 

Mi///on 
Pounds 

40 


30 


ZO 


to 


- 

a\\ 

/\  \ 

A 

/ 

i  n 

\ 

\ 

•^. 

\ 

r  t 

~)ome 
~xpo 

ri~s 

y 

f 

\\ 

/ 

\ 
\ 
\ 

-h 

+ 

-t- 

+- 

i 

I 

i 

l 

1 

\  / 

Vl- 

i\ 

I 

1 

V  ^^ 

i  J 

\n 

1 

\ 

1 

■ 

1 

/mporis    ~for 

i 

i 
1 

1 

Consump-f/on  ■ 

• , 

1 

1 

i 
i 

I 
I 

j 

\ 

i 

1 

/ 

1 

1 

I 

i 

\\ 

\C 

i 

1 

/ 

1 

I 

i 

1 

/900    OZ     04     06      08   /9/0      /2       14-      /6       /8     I9Z0   ZZ     Z4-     Z<8 

Fig.  38. — Domestic  exports  of  butter  from  the  United  States,  1900-1926;  and 
imports  of  butter  for  consumption  in  the  United  States,  1918-1926.  No  definite 
long-time  trend  is  discernible  in  domestic  exports  of  butter.  Since  1919  the 
trend  has  been  definitely  downward.  Imports  for  consumption  have  been  erratic, 
showing  no  definite  trend.  The  dairy  industry  is  delicately  adjusted  at  present 
and  a  pronounced  increase  in  production  making  for  an  excess  of  exports  would 
result  in  a  disturbed  condition  on  the  butter  markets  of  this  country.  Data  from 
table  84. 


The  production  of  the  three  products  (condensed  milk,  butter,  and 
cheese)  can  be  expressed  in  terms  of  whole-milk  equivalents.  Con- 
verting the  three  products  into  whole-milk  equivalents,  the  period 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY    INDUSTRY 


151 


1909-1913  gave  evidence  of  an  import  balance  of  approximately 
325,000,000  pounds  of  milk  (fig.  39).  From  1915  to  1922  the  United 
States  showed  a  balance  of  exports  (milk  equivalents  of  three 
products).  Since  1922  the  balance  has  been  on  the  side  of  imports, 
tnat  for  1926  being  approximately  500,000,000  pounds  (513,431,907). 
The  total  import  balance  would  be  considerably  higher  if  the  net 
imports  of  milk  and  cream  were  taken  into  account.  The  author 
estimates  that  approximately  300,000,000  pounds  should  be  added  for 
milk  and  cream  to  the  1926  balance.  The  latter  imports  were  almost 
exclusively  from  Canada.  The  import  balance  is  very  small,  being 
approximately  1  per  cent  of  the  production  of  the  nation. 


TABLE  84 

Domestic  Exports  and  Imports  for  Consumption  of  Butter, 
United  States,  1910-1926 

(Thousand  pounds — i.e.,  000  omitted) 


Year 

Exports 

Imports* 

Year 

Exports 

Imports 

1910 

1911 

3,104 
6,375 
5,105 
3,115 
3,688 
17,943 
26,561 
7,193 
26,194 

1,386 

894 
1,006 
1,178 
7,788 
3,696 

721 

524 
1,479  (1,593)* 

1919 

1920 

1921 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925 

1926 

34,556 
17,488 
8,015 
10,938 
5,846 
8,257 
5,343 
5,483 

6,962 
37,626 

1912 

17,735 

1913 

7,111 

1914 

20,810 

1915 

19,279 

1916 

6,861 

1917 

6,727 

1918 

*  Imports  1910-1917  are  for  fiscal  years.  (1593)=  imports  for  fiscal  year  1918.  Domestic  exports 
represent  butter  manufactured  within  the  United  States;  imports  for  consumption  represent  butter 
which  is  to  be  consumed  in  the  United  States,  e.g.,  butter  manufactured  in  Canada  and  imported  into 
the  United  States  but  not  intended  for  consumption  would  not  be  included  in  imports  for  domestic 
consumption. 

Source  of  data:  1910-1925,  yearly  summaries  from  U.  S.  Dept.  Commerce, 
Commerce  and  Navigation  of  the  United  States,  1910-1925.  1926,  information 
furnished  to  the  author  by  the  U.  S.  Dept.  Commerce. 


Destinations  of  Butter  Exports. — A  small  amount  of  butter  (be- 
tween 5  and  6  million  pounds)  has  been  absorbed  by  comparatively 
steady  markets  during  the  past  few  years.  Of  these,  Mexico  is  the 
largest,  importing  about  one  million  pounds  annually.  Cuba  follows, 
although  purchases  from  this  country  during  the  last  five  years  have 
decreased.55  Increased  competition  with  Europe  and  an  increased 
Cuban  production  have  contributed  to  this  decrease. 


55  Wulf ert,  M.  A.    United  States  foreign  trade  in  dairy  products.     U.  S.  Dept. 
Commerce,  Commerce  Eeports,  12:  728-730.     1927. 


152 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Cheese 


Concen-f rated  Milk 


ieo<3-/8 

1 

1918 

/9I9 

■ 

/9ZO      | 

I9ZI 
I9ZZ 
I9Z3 
/9Z* 
/9ZS 
/9Z6 

1 
1 

Buffer- ,    Cheese,   and   Concenirai-ed    Mi/A-    Combined 

/mpor+s  fTxpof—f-s 

eoo  <co  zoo     o     zoo  4oo  aoo   soo  rooo  /200  1100  leoo  /300  zooo  zzoo  Z' 


Fig.  39. — The  United  States  balance  of  trade  in  butter,  cheese,  and  concentrated 
milk  expressed  in  terms  of  milk  equivalents  (millions  of  pounds  of  milk).  Im- 
ports exceeded  exports  for  the  five-year  period  1909-1913,  when  all  dairy  products 
are  considered.  During  the  World  War  the  demand  for  dairy  products  abroad 
was  increased  and  from  1914  to  1922  exports  exceeded  imports.  During  the  last 
four  years  the  United  States  has  been  upon  an  import  basis.  No  definite  trend 
in  butter  imports  and  exports  over  the  past  few  years  is  evident.  Cheese  im- 
portations since  1921  have  been  growing  rapidly.  Concentrated-milk  exports  have 
been  decreasing  since  the  peak  year  in  1919.  Since  the  production  of  dairy 
products  is  over  periods  of  time  interchangeable,  the  downward  movement  in 
concentrated-milk  exports  might  be  expected  to  continue.     Data  from  table  85. 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS  OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY 


153 


TABLE  85 


Balance  of  Trade  in  Dairy  Products  for  the  United  States, 
Average  1909-1913  and  Annual  1918-1926 

(Thousand  pounds— i.e.,  000  omitted) 
BUTTER 


Year 

Exports 

Imports 

Net 

Milk 
equivalent 

1909-1913 

4,125 
26,194 
34,556 
17,488 
8,015 
10,938 
5,846 
8,257 
5,343 
5,483 

1,647 

1,655 

9,519 

37,454 

18,558 
6,957 
23,741 
19,405 
7,212 
8,029 

2,479* 
24,539* 
25,037* 
19,966f 
10,544f 

3,980* 
17,896f 
ll,148t 

l,869t 

2,546t 

52,059* 

1918 

515,318* 

1919 

525,779* 

1920 

419,295f 

1921 

221,417f 

1922 

83,583* 

1923 

375,810f 

1924 

234,112t 

1925 

39,250f 

1926 

53,468f 

CHEESE 

1909-1913 

5,142 
48,405 
14,160 
16,292 
11,772 
5,007 
8,331 
4,299 
9,190 
3,903 

46,346 
7,562 
11,332 
15,994 
26,866 
46,573 
64,420 
59,176 
62,402 
78,417 

41,204f 
40,843* 
2,828* 
298* 
15,095f 
41,567t 
56,088f 
54,876f. 
53,212f 
74,514f 

412,040f 

1918 

408,426* 

1919 

28,275* 

1920 

2,978* 

1921 

150,954f 

1922 

415,665f 

1923 

560,885f 

1924 

548,765f 

1925 

532,118t 

1926 

745, 142 t 

CONCENTRATED  MILK 


1909-1913. 

1918 

1919 


1921... 
1922... 
1923.. 
1924.. 
1925.. 
1926.. 


15,760 
551,140 
852,865 
411,078 
289,725 
187,497 
194,264 
206,280 
147,763 
114,549 


14,354* 
540,235* 
836,356* 
387,322* 
281,057* 
182,203* 
183,866* 
199,562* 
143,141* 
112,886* 


35,885* 
1,350,587* 
2,090,890* 
968,306* 
702,643* 
455,508* 
459,666* 
499,570* 
357,853* 
282,214* 


BUTTER,  CHEESE,  AND  CONCENTRATED  MILK  COMBINED 

1909-1913 

324,0961 

1918 

2,274,331* 

1919 

2,644,945* 

1920 

551,988* 

1921 

330,272* 

1922 

123,430* 

1923 

477,029t 

1924 

283,305t 
213,516f 

1925 

1926 

506,396t 

Milk  equivalents  used  in  making  computations  were:  Butter=21  pounds;  cheese  =  10  pounds; 
concentrated  milk=2.5  pounds. 

*  Exports. 

t  Imports. 

Note. — Exports  and  imports  are  generaFas  distinguished  from  domestic  exports  and  imports  for 
consumption  (table  84). 

Source  of  data:   Compilations  furnished  to  author  by  Division  of  Dairy  and 

Poultry  Products,  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr. 


154 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  86 
United  States  Foreign  Trade  in  Butter,  1922-1926 

(Thousand  pounds — i.e.,  000  omitted) 
IMPORTS  (General)* 


Countries 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925 

1926 

Denmark 

Germany 

2,805 
67 
28 

8,822 

78 

448 

7,192 
703 
156 
125 
669 

2,807 

3,189 
89 

4,313 
163 

502 

1,497 
112 

Netherlands 

23 

50 

58 

3,626 

355 

90 

2,396 

112 

5 

Sweden....:. 

135 

United  Kingdom 

28 
2,151 

202 

641 

995 

40 

1,316 
5,932 
2,001 

137 
4,708 

300 

2,273 

Canada 

340 

Argentina 

1,024 

Australia 

456 

2,088 

Other  countries 

211 

Total 

6,957 

23,741 

19,405 

7,212 

8,029 

EXPORTS  (General)' 


Germany 

United  Kingdom 

Honduras 

Panama 

Other  Central  America.. 

Mexico 

Trinidad  and  Tobago 

Other  British  West  Indies. 

Cuba 

Dominican  Republic 

Haiti 

Virgin  Islands  (U.  S.) 

Peru 

Other  South  America 

Japan 

Philippine  Islands 

Other  countries 


Total. 


3,670 
178 
623 
217 
885 
628 
530 
786 
237 
520 
154 
369 
427 
57 
362 

1,296 


10,936 


309 
188 
722 
196 
891 
287 
345 
812 
174 
605 
109 
351 
252 
135 
237 
2,368 


222 

2,348 

195 

744 


341 
845 
139 
417 
165 
510 
252 
69 
227 
264 


,257 


178 
878 
216 
,038 

92 
278 
834 
164 
548 

73 
346 
360 

12 
186 
136 


5,343 


149 

689 

253 

1,009 

42 
271 
794 
141 
573 

59 
519 
487 

60 
248 
186 


5,483 


*  General  imports  and  exports  include  all  imports  and  exports— see  note  table  84,  p.  151. 

Sources  of  data: 

1922-1924,  Wulfert,  M.  A.  International  trade  in  butter  and  cheese.  U.  S. 
Dept.  Commerce,  Bur.  Foreign  and  Domestic  Commerce,  Trade  Promotion  Series, 
31:  21-22.     1926. 

1925-1926,  Wulfert,  M.  A.  United  States  foreign  trade  in  dairy  products, 
1926.     U.  S.  Dept.  Commerce,  Commerce  reports,  12:  728-730.     1927. 


The  principal  butter  markets  of  the  Far  East  are  the  Philippines, 
China,  Hongkong,  and  Japan.  Exports  of  butter  from  this  country 
to  these  markets  have  gradually  decreased  during  the  six  years  1921- 
1926.     Total  imports  into  China  have  increased,  although  the  United 


BUL.  437]  ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF   THE  DAIRY   INDUSTRY  155 

States  has  not  shared  in  the  augmented  trade.  (United  States  exports 
to  China,  1921,  199,994  pounds;  1926,  44,804  pounds).  New  Zealand, 
Australia,  and  Canada  have  obtained  the  larger  part  of  this  trade, 
owing  to  differences  in  price  between  United  States  butter  and  that 
from  other  Pacific  Basin  countries.  Exports  of  butter  from  the 
United  States  to  Hongkong  are  almost  negligible. 

Butter  consumption  is  increasing  in  Japan  although  imports  are 
actually  decreasing  owing  to  the  encouragement  being  given  to  the 
dairy  industry  in  that  country.  The  United  States  has  never  fur- 
nished any  considerable  amounts  of  these  imports;  Canada  supplies 
the  bulk  of  them,  increasing  shipments  from  5,357  pounds  in  1921  to 
378,548  pounds  in  1925.  Price  has  been  the  limiting  factor  in  the 
field  for  American  butter,  since  it  has  been  the  highest-priced  butter 
on  the  Japanese  market. 

The  demand  for  American  butter  in  the  Philippines  has  been 
fairly  steady  (approximately  250,000  pounds  yearly),  although  this 
country  supplies  only  about  25  per  cent  of  the  imported  butter; 
Australia  supplies  about  one-half ;  the  remainder  is  provided  by  Den- 
mark, New  Zealand,  and  Canada. 

The  butter-export  trade  to  South  America  has  been  increasing 
during  the  past  few  years,  having  risen  from  705,978  pounds  in  1925 
to  1,006,182  pounds  in  1926.  Peru  received  over  one-half  of  this 
in  1926 ;  Bolivia,  Colombia,  and  Venezuela  have  also  taken  increasing 
amounts  of  butter  during  the  past  few  years.  A  large  part  of  this 
butter  is  the  tinned  product  originating  on  the  Pacific  Coast. 

Origin  of  Butter  Imports. — Largely  owing  to  the  tariff  and  changes 
in  it,  imports  of  butter  have  been  somewhat  erratic  with  reference  to 
quantity  and  origin.  During  1926,  New  Zealand,  Denmark,  Argen- 
tina, Canada,  and  Australia  were  the  sources  of  the  larger  amounts 
of  butter  imported  into  the  United  States.  Considerable  quantities 
were  re-shipped  from  the  United  Kingdom  to  this  country. 

Comparison  between  Domestic  and  Foreign  Prices  of  Butter. — 
Foreign  price  movements  exert  an  influence  on  the  market  for  milk 
and  its  products,  because  this  country  has  been  dependent  for  some 
time  upon  foreign  markets,  for  the  disposal  of  a  part  of  the  concen- 
trated milk  output  and  at  the  same  time  butter,  cheese,  and  fresh 
milk  and  cream  have  been  imported  (or  exported).  The  production 
and  consumption  of  dairy  products  within  the  United  States  are  so 
closely  balanced  that  a  delicate  adjustment  tends  to  prevail  between 
domestic  and  foreign  prices,  and  developments  in  world  prices  deter- 
mine the  limits  within  which  domestic  prices  may  advance  or  decline. 


156  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

These  influences  can  be  readily  seen  by  a  study  of  figure  40.  In  the 
years  following  the  war,  dairy  production  was  recovering  throughout 
Europe,  and  increasing  in  the  newer  countries  where  it  had  been 
greatly  stimulated.  In  1922,  butter  prices  had  become  relatively  so 
low  in  European  markets  that  butter  was  imported  into  this  country 
after  paying  an  eight-cent  import  duty.  Germany,  after  the  stabiliza- 
tion of  her  currency  in  1923,  began  to  absorb  imports  equal  to  the  pre- 
war volume.  This  influence  had  a  marked  effect  on  the  butter  prices 
in  Europe,  wiping  out  the  differential  in  favor  of  New  York,  and 
substituting  for  a  time  one  in  favor  of  Europe.  Certain  develop- 
ments in  the  importing  markets  have  caused  the  differential  again 
to  change  and  widen,  especially  during  1926  and  the  early  months 
of  1927.  The  weakness  of  prices  abroad  during  this  latter  period  was 
due  to  several  factors:  first,  increased  production  of  butter  in  the 
exporting  countries;  second,  the  increased  supplies  were  forced  into 
consumption  at  a  lower  price,  brought  about  in  part  by  the  prolonged 
labor  troubles  in  Great  Britain;  and  third,  larger  domestic  supplies 
in  some  of  the  butter-importing  countries,  notably  Germany. 

Destinations  of  Cheese  Exports. — Cuba,  Mexico,  and  Panama  at 
present  constitute  the  major  markets  for  cheese  from  this  country. 
Of  the  South  American  countries,  Peru  has  been  the  most  important 
customer,  taking  amounts  varying  from  116,000  to  148,000  pounds 
during  the  three  years  1924-1926.  The  Far  East  has  never  been  a 
market  of  any  considerable  magnitude  for  cheese,  because  the  demand 
comes  largely  from  foreigners  and  those  who  have  lived  abroad.  The 
idea  has  been  advanced  that  there  might  be  a  market  in  the  Orient 
for  cheese,  especially  in  China,  by  educating  the  native  population 
to  eat  it.  There  has  been  no  pronounced  upward  or  downward 
tendency  in  cheese  exports  of  the  United  States  to  the  Orient.  Aver- 
age exports  of  less  than  500,000  pounds  have  been  sent  from  the 
United  States  to  the  Far  East  during  the  past  six  years.  The  United 
States,  Canada,  Great  Britain,  Holland,  France,  and  Italy  supply  the 
Chinese  market  with  cheese,  the  United  States  furnishing  the  larger 
amounts. 

Japan  manufactures  some  small  amounts  of  cheese  and  imports 
from  the  United  States  have  been  decreasing. 

The  bulk  of  the  cheese  imported  into  the  Philippines  has  its  origin 
in  the  United  States  and  Holland  with  smaller  quantities  coming  from 
Switzerland  and  Australia.  Approximately  100,000  pounds  annually 
are  imported  from  the  United  States. 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY 


157 


1   ¥  °   *   M 

2.*  >d    <*"  M 

3  3"  «  ft>  P  as 

_    P     CD     >-*    ^t   * 

9^  w  o'  S"  ^ 

hi    ct? 


Ss    ft 


(u        U|         ^        *>         *         -fck 
£       §       Qo       o       N 


ft  a 


grt.  Kja>  p  « 

H^  o    O    * 

P       h        ^C^ 

t?  P   ^H2 


5°  Co 
P 

3 
P« 

CO 

H 

DO 

OQ 

2 
d 
o 

O 

t3 

co 

Q 

o 

T3 

hj     CD 

5" 

3 
P- 

5' 

p 

rt 

p 
Pj 

o 

CO 

P 

P 

o 

< 

O 
Ms 

so 

!  3 

< 

CO 

►"< 

CO 

P 

O 

Hj  CD 

P     CD 

rt-   CD 

P 

rt 

CD 

P 

co 

O 

a 
P 

"• 

TQ 

O 

P 

pu 

M 

ro 

P 

O 
P 

rt 

O 

CD 

O* 

s«/ 

p 

P 

H» 

rt 

O 

«5 

CD 

B 

t> 

H 

er1 

9 

CO 

P 

HJ 

P 

o 

p 

rt- 

it 

T) 

o 

0 

pj 

P+ 

d 

•5 

3 

rt 

5 

P 

co" 

< 

P 

P 

P 

co 

rt 

P 

CO 

^ 

A 

O 

CD 

P 

□B 

0 

o 

3. 

9 

P 

u 

a 

d 

0 

p 

r 

O 

0 
3 

o 

o 

p 

GO 

CO 

d 

i-i 

ro 

w 

t 

-i 

pa 

s 

" 

CO 

BE 

Pj 

p 

p 

;* 

'-1 

ft 

Pj 

> 

P 

p 

3 

as 

0 

0 

| 

J 

o 

— 

p 

*\ 

he 

rt 

P 

G 

p 

co 

d 

Bj 

4 
W 

> 

C 

a 
d 

CD 

g 

J*  9 

CD 

rs 

P 

CD 

Ci 

I 

rt 

< 

d 
rt 

X 

OQH5 

CD 

Hj   P 

P 

CD 

CD 

O 

r» 

0 

P 

P 

>-i 

CD 

t*     N 


fc 


\ 

x*" 

— 

X 

r- 

— — 

s 

y 

f  ~~* 

•MM  <■ 

'**■ 

*** 

•— ' 

— 

V. 

-«— . 

•*«.„ 

— . 

^ 

0^* 

*>-. 

> 

f> 

s 

1 

| 

^-». 

-**, 

t- 

> 

T*° 

ii 

^ 

•js* 

^ 

*< 

•-• 

""••"^ 

< 

. 

-^ 

\ 

**>^ 

** 

^. 

>» 

^> 

f 

^ 

«*'***' 



.— 

— 

—  ^mm 

y 

, 

x> 

4 

-> 

158 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  87 
United  States  Foreign  Trade  in  Cheese,  1922-1926 

(Thousand  pounds — i.e.,  000  omitted) 


IMPORTS  (General) 


Countries 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925 

1926 

Denmark 

93 

210 

379 
435 

4,444 

1,817 
31,256 

2,899 

13,632 

319 

984 

1,048 
105 
445 

1,413 

270 

112 

5,567 

1,491 

33,829 

2,937 

15,993 

288 

209 

89 

265 
516 

3,259 
782 
16,628 
2,254 
12,011 
268 
6,351 
3,913 

4 
1,010 

5,121 

1,456 

28,034 

2,498 

16,982 

797 

3,105 

4,343 

1 

1 

1,871 

5,424 

Greece 

Italy 

Netherlands 

Switzerland 

United  Kingdom 

Canada 

2,570 

35,026 

3,471 

16,736 

258 

11,835 

232 

78 

320 
1,297 

33 

2,053 

Total 

46,573 

64,420 

59,176 

62,402 

78,420 

EXPORTS  (General) 


Germany 

Canada 

Panama 

Mexico 

Cuba 

Jamaica 

Haiti 

Virgin  Islands  (U.  S.)... 

Honduras 

Peru 

China 

Philippine  Islands 

Other  countries 


Total.. 


39 

321 

332 

1,294 

1,345 

389 


107 
25 


705 


5,007 


757 
349 
920 
1,474 
231 

91 

70 
105 

75 
134 

98 
3,983 


8,331 


432 
173 
359 
872 
1,146 
189 
81 


116 
122 
100 
554 


1,299 


3,204 

1,301 

420 

1,001 

1,057 

261 

114 

67 

74 

148 

246 

112 

1,186 


11 
248 
441 
797 
850 
277 
100 
67 
70 
130 
187 
115 
610 


3,903 


Sources  of  data: 

1922-1924,  Wulfert,  M.  A.  International  trade  in  butter  and  cheese.  U.  S. 
Dept.  Commerce,  Bur.  Foreign  and  Domestic  Commerce,  Trade  Promotion  Series, 
31:  p.  43.     1926. 

1925-1926,  Wulfert,  M.  A.  United  States  foreign  trade  in  dairy  products, 
1926.     U.  S.  Dept.  Commerce,  Commerce  reports,  12:  728-730.     1927. 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY    INDUSTRY 


159 


Imports  of  Cheese, — A  total  of  78,420,296  pounds  of  cheese  were 
imported  into  the  United  States  in  1926,  this  amount  being  14,000,000 
pounds  larger  than  the  record  imports  of  1923,  while  exports  were 
the  lowest  since  1914.  Italy  supplies  nearly  one-half  of  the  cheese 
imports,  followed  by  Switzerland,  Holland,  France,  Greece,  and 
Canada.  The  latter  country  during  1926  contributed  nearly  twelve 
million  pounds,  compared  with  208,871  pounds  in  1925  and  984,072 
pounds  in  1924. 

TABLE  88 
United  States  Exports  of  Concentrated  Milk,  1922-1926 

(Thousand  pounds — i.e.,  000  omitted) 


Country 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925 

1926 

United  Kingdom 

Germany 

19,302 
28,437 
19,254 
3,874 
3,474 
3,137 
6,937 
4,838 
7,069 
91,175 

32,835 
31,201 
28,412 
5,059 
3,933 
4,784 
12,173 
5,242 
6,157 
64,468 

28,782 

62,281 

33,771 

4,681 

4,165 

3,565 

16,315 

4,300 

6,892 

41,528 

29,481 
31,223 
19,550 
4,569 
3,818 
4,680 
19,015 
5,870 
6,962 
22,595 

23,341 
4,809 

Cuba 

17,359 

Panama 

4,171 

Mexico 

4,424 

Peru 

3,288 

Philippine  Islands 

17,664 

China 

7,066 

Japan 

5,231 

Other  countries 

27,196 

Total 

187,497 

194,264 

206,280 

147,763 

114,549 

Source  of  data:  U.  S.  Dept.  Commerce,  Bur.  Foreign  and  Domestic  Commerce, 
information  to  the  author. 

Powdered  Milk. — Exports  of  this  product  have  been  erratic  with 
reference  to  amounts  shipped.  Demand  from  Europe,  especially  from 
Germany  and  Great  Britain,  has  greatly  lessened.  Trade  with  the 
American  tropics,  South  America,  and  the  Far  East  has  declined  less 
than  that  with  Europe.  Imports  on  a  considerable  scale  have  been 
received  from  Canada. 


TARIFF  ON  DAIRY  PRODUCTS 

The  tariff  on  various  dairy  products  is  shown  in  table  98.  The 
tariff  will  benefit  the  dairymen  only  if  domestic  demand  is  equal  to, 
or  in  excess  of  production.  A  tariff  under  ordinary  circumstances 
is  of  little  benefit  if  the  country  is  on  an  exporting  basis. 


160  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


THE   INTERNATIONAL   TRADE   IN  DAIRY  PRODUCTS 

The  types  of  dairy  product  originating  in  different  countries  and 
the  demands  for  them  are  so  dissimilar  that  it  is  necessary  to  discuss 
individually  each  of  the  three  chief  products  entering  into  interna- 
tional trade.  The  trade  between  producing  and  consuming  countries 
experienced  an  upheaval  during  the  World  War,  from  which  some  of 
them  have  not  yet  emerged. 

Butter. — During  the  five  years,  1909-1913,  an  average  of  approxi- 
mately 700,000,000  pounds  of  butter  was  annually  placed  upon  the 
world  market.56  The  bulk  of  the  international  trade  in  butter  in  the 
years  just  before  the  war  was  between  European  countries,  although 
Australia,  New  Zealand,  and  Argentina  had  become  factors  of  some 
importance.  During  the  World  War  shipments  dropped  as  low  as 
206,000,000  pounds.  The  destruction  of  dairy  cattle  and  the  scarcity 
of  feedstuffs  throughout  Europe  caused  dairy  production  to  be  cur- 
tailed. 

With  the  close  of  the  war  the  world  trade  began  to  be  resumed 
somewhat  upon  the  old  lines.  European  production  gradually  in- 
creased as  feed  became  plentiful  and  cheap.  Outside  of  Europe 
production  had  been  stimulated  and  in  1926  the  butter  entering  into 
the  international  trade  totaled  over  900,000,000  pounds,  a  greater 
quantity  than  before  the  war. 

The  United  States,  Germany,  France,  and  Denmark  are  the  world's 
largest  producers  of  butter,  although  a  study  of  the  world  trade 
reveals  that  these  countries  do  not  rank  in  the  export  trade  in  this 
same  order.  The  leading  exporters  are  Denmark,  New  Zealand, 
Holland,  Russia,  and  Argentina.  The  increase  in  butter  supplies 
during  the  past  two  decades  has  come  largely  from  the  southern 
hemisphere — New  Zealand,  Argentina,  and  Australia.  Denmark  and 
Holland  have  again  reached  the  pre-war  export  levels.  Russia  did 
not  reappear  on  the  world  markets  until  1923  and  exports  still  remain 
lower  than  before  the  war,  even  when  the  exports  from  the  former 
Baltic  provinces  of  Russia  are  taken  into  consideration.  Between 
1909  and  1913  Russia  ranked  second  only  to  Denmark  in  the  amounts 
of  butter  exported. 

Before  the  war,  as  well  as  at  present,  the  United  Kingdom  was 
by  far  the  world's  largest  market  for  butter,  taking  approximately 


s6  Wulfert,   M.   A.      International   trade   in   butter   and   cheese.      U.    S.    Dept. 
Commerce  Trade  Promotion  Series,  31:  p.  51.     1926. 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY    INDUSTRY 


161 


75  per  cent  of  the  world  exports.  After  allowing  for  re-exports,  the 
amount  of  imports  retained  for  consumption  was  626  million  pounds 
in  1926  against  616  million  pounds  in  1925,  570  million  in  1924,  and 
452  million  in  1913  (see  table  89). 


TABLE  89 
International  Trade  in  Butter  of  Various  Countries,  1910-1926 

(Hundred  thousand  pounds — i.e.,  00,000  omitted) 


Exports 

Imports 

Year 

Argen- 
tina 

Austra- 
lia 

Canada 

Den- 
mark 

Nether- 
lands 

New- 
Zealand 

Russia 

Ger- 
many 

Switzer- 
land 

United 
Kingdom 

1910 

1911 

1912 

1913 

1914 

63 
31 
81 
83 
77 
102 
125 
217 
418 
449 
474 
569 
540 
615 
654 
593 
642 

879 

1,017 

667 

758 

541 

180 

754 

723 

411 

390 

924 

1,276 

796 

538 

1,111 

1,285 

829 

46 

31 

88 

8 

12 

27 

34 

80 

49 

137 

176 

97 

84 

132 

223 

266 

98 

1,951 
1,975 
1,878 
2,007 
2,101 
2,240 
2,111 
1,355 
323 
806 
1,650 
2,030 
2,076 
2,462 
2,720 
2,707 
2,921 

725 
665 
863 
817 
844 
934 
798 
542 
54 
302 
456 
445 
510 
528 
766 
876 
1,004 

399 

339 

423 

417 

486 

471 

402 

285 

483 

387 

349 

1,006 

1,255 

1,400 

1,422 

1,395 

1,307 

1,244 
1,687 
1,608 
1,720 
1,190 
1,194 

928 
1,236 
1,225 
1,196 

110 
120 
119 
112 
89 
57 
9 
4 
1 
133 
183 
160 
151 
147 
200 
191 
178 

4,845 
4,819 
4,486 
4,636 
4,462 

1915 

4,316 

1916... 

2,436 

1917 

2,023 

1918 

1,768 

1919 

1,747 

1920 

172 

34 

24 

29 

1,179 

2,130 

2,159 

1,906 

1921 

3,947 

1922 

4,781 

1923 

1924 

1925 

1926 

110 
445 
551 

5,707* 
5,922* 
6,557* 
6,518* 

*  Excluding  Irish  Free  State,  from  which  shipments  were  not  separately  reported  prior  to  April  1, 
1923;  the  corresponding  imports  were:     1923—515,553;  1924—540,498;  1925—610,556;  1926 . 

Sources  of  data: 

1910-1925,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  International  trade  in  butter 
and  cheese.     Foreign  Crops  and  Markets,  13:  182-185.     1926. 

1926,  Argentina,  U.  S.  Dept.  Commerce.  Argentine  dairy  industry  during  the 
year  1926.  Foodstuffs  'Bound  the  World.  World  Dairy  and  Poultry  News,  p.  1. 
July  15,  1927. 

Australia,  computations  by  author  based  upon  data  in  Landbrugsraadets 
Meddelelser  (Agricultural  Council's  Communications),  Copenhagen,  Denmark, 
1927   (35)  :  p.  616.     1927. 

Canada,  U.  S.  Dept.  Commerce.  Canada  has  increase  in  butter  and  decrease 
in  cheese  production  in  1926.  Foodstuffs  'Round  the  World.  World  Dairy  and 
Poultry  News,  p.  4.     March  25,  1927. 

Denmark,  Landbrugsraadet.  Landbrugsraadets.  Meddelelser  (Agricultural 
Council's   Communications),   1927    (26) :  p.   466.     Copenhagen,   Denmark.      1927. 

Netherlands,  U.  S.  Dept.  Commerce.  Netherlands  production  and  export  of 
butter  and  cheese.  Foodstuffs  'Round  the  World.  World  Dairy  and  Poultry 
News,  p.  3.     June  3,  1927. 

New  Zealand,  monthly  data  reported  by  U.  S.  Dept.  Commerce  added  by 
author  to  obtain  total.  Monthly  data  given  in  various  issues  of  the  U.  S.  Dept. 
Commerce.     Foodstuffs   'Round  the  World.     World  Dairy  and  Poultry  News. 

Germany,  Landbrugsraadet.  Landsbrugsraadets  Meddelelser  (Agricultural 
Council's  Communications),  1927   (3)  :  p.  37.     Copenhagen,  Denmark.     1927. 


162  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Germany  in  pre-war  years  was  second  only  to  the  United  Kingdom 
as  a  butter-importing  country,  the  imports  amounting  to  an  average 
of  111,440,000  pounds  annually  during  the  five  years  1909-1913. 
During  the  period  from  the  close  of  the  war  until  the  summer  of  1924 
the  imports  of  butter  were  small  for  economic  reasons.  With  the 
stabilization  of  German  currency  in  1923  the  imports  reached  the 
pre-war  level  in  1924,  and  during  1926  amounted  to  215,577,000 
pounds.  A  considerable  amount  of  this  increase  has  come  about 
through  the  decrease  in  domestic  production,  which  is  lower  than 
during  pre-war  years.  The  butter  imports  into  other  countries  are 
comparatively  small. 

Cheese. — The  volume  of  world  trade  in  cheese  is  not  quite  so  large 
as  that  of  butter.  Owing  to  the  various  types  of  cheese  entering  into 
this  trade,  some  of  them  are  not  competitive.  During  the  period 
1909-1913,  approximately  530,000,000  pounds  represented  the  volume 
of  the  world  trade.  The  pre-war  level  was  reached  in  1922  and  a 
steady  increase  has  taken  place  since  that  time.  The  increase  in 
exports  has  originated  almost  wholly  in  the  southern  hemisphere. 

The  largest  cheese  producing  countries  are  Italy,  the  United 
States,  France,  Germany,  the  Netherlands,  Canada,  Switzerland,  and 
New  Zealand.  Previous  to  the  World  War,  Canada  was  the  greatest 
exporter;  this  position  has  been  taken  by  New  Zealand,  which  is  now 
followed  by  Holland,  Canada,  Italy,  Switzerland,  and  France. 

The  United  Kingdom  is  the  market  for  approximately  50  per  cent 
of  the  cheese  entering  world  trade,  although  Germany,  Belgium, 
France,  and  the  United  States  are  large  importers.  Russia  has  not 
been  a  factor  in  the  cheese  trade. 

Condensed  and  Evaporated  Milk. — Comparing  the  post-war  with 
the  pre-war  period,  the  world  trade  in  concentrated  milk  has  increased 
phenomenally.  Radical  changes  have  come  about  in  the  relative 
positions  of  the  exporting  nations.  Before  the  war,  Switzerland  was 
the  principal  exporting  nation,  followed  by  Norway,  the  United 
States,  Italy,  and  Canada.  The  Netherlands  and  the  United  States 
now  occupy  the  dominant  positions  in  the  export  trade,  followed  by 
Switzerland,  Denmark,  and  Canada. 

The  United  Kingdom  is  the  principal  market  for  concentrated 
milk  as  for  other  dairy  products,  although  Germany,  the  Philippine 
Islands,  France,  South  Africa,  India,  Japan,  and  China  have  taken 
considerable  quantities.  The  Asiatic  markets  have  been  of  particular 
interest  to  the  Pacific  Coast. 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY    INDUSTRY 


163 


TABLE  90 

International  Trade  in  Cheese  of  Various  Countries,  1910-1926 

(Hundred  thousand  pounds— i.e.,  00,000  omitted) 


Exports 

Imports 

Year 

Canada 

France 

Italy 

Nether- 
lands 

New- 
Zealand 

Switzer- 
land 

France 

Italy 

Ger- 
many 

United 
Kingdom 

1910 

1,809 

252 

575 

1,228 

506 

694 

466 

148 

460 

2,751 

1911 

1,819 

240 

614 

1,136 

492 

666 

494 

119 

460 

2,630 

1912 

1,635 

277 

675 

1,311 

646 

664 

476 

101 

473 

2,586 

1913 

1,552 

314 

723 

1,453 

685 

787 

519 

124 

579 

2,573 

1914  ... 

1,447 

223 

660 

1,496 

967 

776 

455 

98 

2,726 

1915 

1,376 

136 

658 

1,903 

915 

748 

467 

35 

3,054 

1916 

1,690 

117 

393 

1,996 

1,063 

472 

263 

3 

2,917 

1917  .. . 

1,807 

74 

23 

1,236 

992 

129 

120 

3,300 

1918   . 

1,695 

44 

9 

329 

989 

27 

112 

7 

2,640 

1919 

1,522 

62 

18 

274 

1,761 

14 

152 

112 

2,372 

1920 

1,264 

127 

28 

997 

1,369 

32 

212 

59 

503 

3,080 

1921 

1,337 

144 

167 

1,153 

1,533 

106 

351 

18 

600 

3,156 

1922 

1,339 

218 

321 

1,438 

1,301 

462 

506 

156 

520 

2,978 

1923 

1,162 

279 

504 

1,366 

1,614 

390 

457 

102 

249 

3,179 

1924 

1,215 

344 

741 

1,704 

1,786 

438 

390 

42 

967 

3,234 

1925 

1,507 

357 

862 

1,757 

1,542 

517 

406 

39 

1,487 

3,474 

1926 

1,347 

315 

729 

1,857 

1,538 

620 

347 

79 

1,413 

3,375 

Sources  of  data: 

1910-1925,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  International  trade  in  butter 
and  cheese.     Foreign  Crops  and  Markets,  13:  182-185.     1926. 

1926  data,  Canada,  U.  S.  Dept.  Commerce.  Canada  has  increase  in  butter  and 
decrease  in  cheese  production  in  1926.  Foodstuffs  'Bound  the  World.  World 
Dairy  and  Poultry  News,  p.  4.     March  25,  1927. 

France,  Italy,  U.  S.  Dept.  Commerce.  International  trade  in  butter  and 
cheese.     Commerce  Reports,  1927   (40)  :  p.  22. 

Netherlands,  U.  S.  Dept.  Commerce.  Netherlands  production  and  export  of 
butter  and  cheese.  Foodstuffs  'Round  the  World.  World  Dairy  and  Poultry 
News,  p.  3.     June  3,  1927. 

New  Zealand,  monthly  data  reported  by  U.  S.  Dept.  Commerce  added  by 
author  to  obtain  total.  Monthly  data  given  in  various  issues  of  U.  S.  Dept.  Com- 
merce.    Foodstuffs   'Round  the  World.     World  Dairy  and  Poultry  News. 

Switzerland,  Landbrugsraadet.  Landbrugsraadets  Meddelelser  (Agricultural 
Council's  Announcements),  1927   (12)  :  p.  273.     Copenhagen,  Denmark.     1927. 

Germany,  Landbrugsraadet.  Landbrugsraadets  Meddelelser  (Agricultural 
Council's  Communications),  1927    (12)  :  p.  273.     Copenhagen,  Denmark.     1927. 

United  Kingdom,  Landbrugsraadet.  Landbrugsraadets  Meddelelser  (Agricul- 
tural Council's  Announcements),  1927  (3)  :  p.  37.     Copenhagen,  Denmark.    1927. 


164 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  91 


International   Trade  in  Concentrated  Milk,  Average   1909-1913, 
Annual  1923-1925 

(Thousand  pounds — i.e.,  000  omitted) 


Year  ended  December  31 

Country 

Average — 
1909-1913 

1923 

1924 

1925— 
Preliminary 

Imports 

Exports 

Imports 

Exports 

Imports 

Exports 

Imports 

Exports 

Exporting: 

4,463 

259 
cll 
806 
e39 
261 
3 
201 

727 

4,575 

d4,724 

5,913 

55 

132 

32,106 

80,539 

rf16,200 

679 
177 

4 
987 
163 

3 

989 

177 

10,398 

1,016 

668 

645 

7,083 

9,443 

46,948 

1,546 

25,124 

8,872 

12,623 

10,752 

16,855 

51 

190 

10,697 

249,859 

612,726 

41,056 

66,969 

6,791 

227,393 

1,443 

16,069 

55,827 

194,264 

156 
104 

Canada 

155 

40,251 
71,198 
13,559 

233,901 

1,408 

13,311 

58,225 

206,280 

13 

281 

119 

40,614 

57,739 

Italy 

Netherlands 

855 
236 
31 
685 
120 
6,619 

946 

1,399 

1,426 

010,033 

9,461 

47,974 

1,740 

20,168 

26,753 

12,642 

10,926 

17,890 

8 

150 

10,026 

244,379 

771 

291 

93  ' 

1,169 

68 

6,964 

1,187 
4,313 

17,324 

248,674 

1,144 

Norway 

Switzerland 

16,848 
67,555 
147,763 

Importing: 

742 
/ 

8,694 

11,236 

4,484 

28,457 

M.628 

2,458 

66 

10,061 

c6,136 

12,311 

5,605 

28 

21,227 

121,175 

5 

/ 

1,096 

217 

"87 

A14,124 

Cuba 

125 
7,483 

582 
61 

160 

4,916 

570 

74 

1,171 
19,991 
28,392 
*4,637 

253 

France 

Germany ; 

Japan 

4,140 
12,080 

6,001 
1,428 
*110 

c74 

43 

91 

9,922 

247,523 

92 
I 

48,221 

20 

1 

13,825 

51 

1 

11,023 

Union  of  South  Africa  . 
United  Kingdom 

6 
14,299 

Total,   twenty-five 

240,351 

209,578 

415,349 

645,112 

424,622 

655,309 

340,869 

620,859 

a  Includes  some  preserved  milk. 

6  Year  beginning  July  1. 

c  Two-year  average. 

d  Four-year  average. 

e  Three-year  average. 

f  Not  separately  stated. 

Source  of  data:  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Bur.  Agr.  Econ. 
densed  milk.     Foreign  Crops  and  Markets,  13:  p.  186 


9  Twelve  months'  sea-trade,  three  months'  land-trade. 

h  Sea-trade  only. 

1  One  year  only. 

1  Includes  some  powdered  milk. 

*  Five  months 

'  Less  than  500  pounds. 

International  trade  in  con- 
1926. 


BUL.  437]  ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY  165 


THE  FOREIGN  DAIRY  SITUATION 

Dairying  is  of  importance  in  almost  all  of  the  occidental  countries 
in  both  the  northern  and  southern  hemispheres  (table  92).  The 
industry  was  one  of  the  first  in  Europe  to  begin  re-establishing  itself 
after  the  close  of  the  war  in  1918.  The  trend  of  imports  and  exports 
in  both  butter  and  cheese  for  the  chief  countries  participating  in  the 
international  trade  in  these  two  products  will  be  found  in  tables  89 
and  90.  The  foreign  dairy  situation  in  the  various  countries  con- 
cerned with  international  trade  is  briefly  described  in  the  following 
paragraphs. 

A  continued  increase  in  exports  from  the  southern  hemisphere  and 
northwest  Europe  does  not  appear  probable.  Supplies  are  large  and 
prices  have  been  falling  (outside  of  the  United  States).  In  addition, 
ocean  freights  have  risen  during  the  past  two  years. 

Argentina. — There  has  been  but  little  change  in  the  exports  of 
butter  from  Argentina  since  1923.  In  common  with  the  other  export- 
ing nations  in  the  southern  hemisphere  the  dairy  industry  experienced 
its  greatest  growth  during  the  war  period.  Cheese  exports  are  rela- 
tively unimportant. 

Australia. — Exports  of  butter  have  been  declining  since  1925. 
In  the  first  eleven  months  of  the  season  1926-1927,  exports  totaled 
75,200,000  pounds.  A  corresponding  period  in  1925-1926  reported 
95,400,000  pounds;  1924-1925,  140,000,000;  and  1923-1924,  62,200,- 
000. 57  This  reduction  in  exports  has  been  brought  about  by  a  reduced 
production  and  an  increased  consumption.  Cheese  exports  have  never 
assumed  great  importance. 

Canada. — Exports  of  butter  have  been  irregular,  but  those  of 
cheese  have  been  fairly  constant.  The  trend  in  cheese  exports  has 
been  downward  over  the  past  twenty-six  years.  Until  1913  (1901- 
1913)  Canada  was  the  world's  largest  exporter;  at  the  present  time 
it  is  below  both  New  Zealand  and  Holland. 

Denmark. — A  steady  upward  trend  in  butter  exports  has  been 
maintained,  and  first  place  over  New  Zealand  has  been  held.  The 
first  six  months  of  1927  indicated  an  increase  of  6-7  per  cent  over 
the  similar  period  for  1926.  Cheese  exports  declined.  The  general 
increase  in  exports  is  due  to  a  pronounced  increase  in  the  number  of 
cows,  especially  during  1925.     Prices  for  butter  were  approximately 

57  Landbrugsraadet.  Landbrugsraadets  Meddelelser  (Agricultural  Council's 
Communications),   (25)  :  p.  454.     Copenhagen,  Denmark.     1927. 


166 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


7  per  cent  lower  in  1927  than  in  1926. 58     Concentrated-milk  exports 
have  been  declining  during  the  three  years  1924-1926. 


TABLE  92 
Head  of  Cattle  and  the  Number  of  Cows  in  Various  Countries 


Country 
1 

Year 
2 

Specification 
3 

Number  of 

dairy  cows, 

in  thousands 

4 

Total 

cattle,  in 

thousands 

5 

Percentage 
of  cows  as 
compared 
with  total 
i  cattle 
6 

1922 
1924 
1923 
1926 
1920 
1926 
1925 
1925 
1927 
1925 
1926 
1926 
1926 
1925 

1926 
1926 
1918 
1923 
1923 
1921 
1926 
1924 
1924 
1924 
1920 
1926 
1925 
1921 
1924 
1926 

3,295 
2,305 
1,075 

892 

83 

3,951 

119 
2,332 
1,513 

361 
1,292 
7,701 
9,160 
3,164 

901 

1,421 

2,600 

57 

580 
1,086 
1,280 

765 
1,686 

612 
1,739 

873 

3,800 

2,264 

20,166f 

22,290 

37,065 

13,357 

2,163 

1,712 

1,877 

9,160 

4,335 

4,691 

2,912 

555 

1,860 

14,282 

17,195 

7,368 

1,848 
4,614 

8  9 

17.3 

49.7 

52.1 

4.4 

43.1 

4.4 

49.7 

52.0 

65.0 

69.4 

53.2 

53.3 

Cows  and  heifers  in 

milk  or  in  calf. 
Cows 

42.9 

Hungary.. 

48.8 

30.8 

Italy 

1,469 

891 

2,064 

3,413 

1,114 

5,400 

3,436 

2,734 

1,587 

8,000 

6,202 

38,632 

59,289 

3.9 

Cows 

Cows  in  milk  or  in  calf. 

Dairy  cows 

Milk  cows 

Cows  in  milk 

Dairy  cows 

65.1 

52.6 

37.5 

68.6 

31.2 

17.8 

63.6 

55  0 

Ukraine 

47.5 

36.5 

Union  of  Soviet  Republics 

52.2 

United  States 

Milk  cows 

37.6 

t  The  number  of  cows  in  the  Union  of  Soviet  Republics  in  1925  was  23,849,200,  according  to  The 
World's  Butter  Review,  Future  of  the  butter  industry  in  Russia.  The  World's  Butter  Review  1(2)  :29. 
1927. 

Sources  of  data:  International  Institute  of  Agriculture.  Annuaire  Inter- 
national de  Statistique  Agricole,  1924-1925:  (International  Yearbook  of  Agri- 
cultural Statistics  for  1924-1925)  pp.  26,  39,  55,  61,  83,  94.  1925.  International 
Institute  of  Agriculture.  International  Crop  Report  and  Agricultural  Statistics, 
15:  pp.  196,  594.  1924;  16:  pp.  129,  279,  603.  1925;  17:  pp.  84,  85,  181,  553, 
685.  1926;  18  :  pp.  32,  33,  75,  129-130,  171,  283,  347.  1927.  International  Insti- 
tute of  Agriculture.  Dairy  cow  testing  in  different  countries.  Wir'tschaft  und 
Statistik,  3 :  p.  66.     1926. 


58  Landbrugsraadet. 
Communications),  1927 


Landbrugsraadets    Meddelelser    (Agricultural    Council's 
(26)  :  469-470.     Copenhagen,  Denmark.     1927. 


BUL.  437]  ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF   THE  DAIRY  INDUSTRY  167 

Esthonia. — Since  the  war  the  former  Baltic  provinces  of  Russia 
have  shown  a  decided  tendency  to  increase  exports  of  butter.  With 
the  exception  of  Finland,  comparisons  before  1920  are  not  available. 
Exports  of  butter  from  Esthonia  during  the  past  five  years  1922-1926 
have  been  as  follows:59 

1922 2,203,280  pounds 

1923 5,174,420        " 

1924 7,026,180        " 

1925 14,207,500        " 

1926 19,293,300        " 

Finland. — Exports  of  both  butter  and  cheese  now  exceed  those 
of  1913.  Since  1923  the  exports  of  both  products  have  shown  a  dis- 
tinct upward  tendency  as  the  following  data  indicate:00 

Exportslof_Butter  Exports  of  Cheese 

1913 27,866,144  pounds  2,698,430  pounds 

1923 14,475,404    "  2,943,141    " 

1924 18,183,541    "  5,610,707    " 

1925 29,083,083    "  8,421,572    " 

1926 29,127,175    "  6,364,680    " 

The  first  nine  months  of  1927  show  substantial  increases  in  the 
amounts  of  butter  exported,  and  cheese  exports  have  been  a  third 
larger  than  those  of  1926. 

France. — Little  change  in  milk,  butter,  or  cheese  production  has 
taken  place  in  France  during  1924,  1925,  1926.  Milk  and  butter 
production  are  slightly  less  than  they  were  in  1913 ;  cheese  production 
is  slightly  larger. 

Germany. — The  reappearance  of  Germany  on  the  world  market 
has  afforded  a  much  needed  outlet  for  the  increased  supplies  of 
butter  and  cheese.  Imports  of  both  butter  and  cheese  during  1926 
were  far  in  excess  of  what  they  were  at  any  time  since  the  war.  This 
situation  has  been  brought  about  mainly  by  the  depletion  of  herds 
during  the  war.  Boundary  changes  have  had  some  little  influence 
no  doubt  in  making  for  the  larger  imports.  There  has  been  a  steady 
increase  in  the  number  of  dairy  cows  in  Germany  during  the  three 
years  1924-1926,   and  with  the  interest  taken   in  cow-testing  work 

so  U.  S.  Dept.  Commerce.  Butter  exports  from  Esthonia.  Foodstuffs  'Round 
the  World— World  Dairy  and  Poultry  Products,  pp.  2,  3.     Mar.  11,  1927. 

60  Bank  of  Finland.  Exports  of  the  most  important  articles.  Monthly  Bui. 
5:  p.  13.     Helsingfors,  Finland.     1927. 


168  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Germany  may  steadily  become  more  self-sufficient.  Imports  during 
the  first  seven  months  of  1927  indicate  a  tendency  for  imports  of 
both  butter  and  cheese  to  be  approximately  the  same  as  for  the  corre- 
sponding period  in  1926. 

Great  Britain. — Imports  of  butter  into  the  United  Kingdom  are 
now  considerably  larger  than  they  were  before  the  war.  Approxi- 
mately the  same  amounts  of  butter  were  imported  during  the  first 
eight  months  of  1927,  1926,  and  1925.  There  has  been  an  actual 
increase  in  imports,  although  a  considerable  portion  of  it  occurs  on 
account  of  the  separate  statistics  now  used  for  the  Irish  Free  State 
(see  Irish  Free  State).  Formerly  butter  exported  from  the  Irish 
Free  State  to  England  was  not  classed  under  imports. 

Cheese  importations  attained  the  largest  volume  in  history  in  1925, 
although  a  slight  falling  off  was  noticeable  in  1926. 

The  United  Kingdom  is  the  leading  importer  of  butter  and  cheese 
and  likewise  of  concentrated  milk.  Imports  of  the  latter  product  are 
twice  as  large  as  before  the  war. 

Holland. — Exports  of  cheese,  butter,  and  concentrated  milk  have 
shown  a  decidedly  rapid  upward  trend  since  1918,  offerings  of  the 
latter  two  in  1926  being  larger  than  before  the  war.  Exports  of  cheese 
have  shown  a  distinct  tendency  to  rise  during  the  first  quarter  of  1927. 
Holland  is  rapidly  displacing  the  United  States  in  the  European 
market  for  concentrated  milk.  Factory  methods  have  been  applied 
to  dairy  manufacturing  activities,  and  as  a  result  Holland  appears 
to  be  in  a  strongly  intrenched  position  in  the  dairy  industry  as  far 
as  markets  are  concerned. 

Italy. — Italian  cheese  exports  reached  the  largest  total  on  record 
in  1926,  a  large  amount  of  which  found  a  market  in  the  United  States. 
The  large  number  of  Italians  who  are  now  resident  in  the  United 
States  has  had  an  influence  on  the  cheese  exports  from  Italy.  Italy's 
cheese  exports  amount  to  only  about  one-eighth  of  the  total  produc- 
tion, as  domestic  cheese  consumption  is  very  large.  Italian  cheese 
exports  had  reached  considerable  volume  in  1913  but  the  war  almost 
stopped  the  trade.  The  recovery  since  1919  has  come  about  with 
almost  phenomenal  rapidity. 

Irish  Free  State. — Since  exports  have  been  recorded  separately 
from  those  of  Great  Britain  a  pronounced  trend  in  butter  exports 
is  not  present.  The  exports  for  1924,  1925,  and  1926  in  millions  of 
pounds  were  51,  45,  and  56,  respectively. 


BUL.  437]  ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF   THE  DAIRY   INDUSTRY  169 

Latvia. — The  Republic  of  Latvia,  another  of  the  former  Russian 
Baltic  provinces,  has  evidenced  along  with  all  of  the  east  Baltic  areas 
a  distinct  recover  since  the  war.  The  following  are  the  exports  of 
butter:61 

1921 33,000  pounds 

1922 1,850,000 

1923 6,391,000 

1924 8,109,000 

1925 15,708,000 

1926 22,345,011 

Lithuania, — This,  the  most  southerly  of  the  east  Baltic  provinces 
of  the  former  Russian  Empire,  has  based  high  expectations  on  the 
potentialities  of  butter  export.  The  amount  of  butter  shipped  in 
1926  was  3,858,050  pounds,  against  2,054,687  in  1925.62 

New  Zealand, — The  most  rapid  growth  of  the  export  trade  in  both 
butter  and  cheese  during  the  first  quarter  of  the  twentieth  century 
has  been  experienced  by  New  Zealand.  Natural  and  climatic  condi- 
tions together  with  low  freight  rates  have  combined  to  make  the 
exports  large.  A  great  impetus  was  given  to  the  entire  dairy  industry 
at  the  close  of  the  war.  The  peak  in  exports  was  reached  in  1924, 
although  present  indications  point  to  a  decided  increase  during  1927. 
The  comparatively  low  prices  obtained  are  making  for  changes  from 
intensive  dairying  to  more  extensive  sheep  raising  at  the  present 
time  (July,  1927).  Concentrated  milk  production  has  never  been 
large  and  it  is  doubtful  whether  New  Zealand  will  become  a  serious 
competitor  in  this  trade. 

Switzerland. — The  mountain  republic  is  both  an  importer  and  an 
exporter  of  dairy  products,  butter  being  steadily  imported,  while  the 
markets  for  cheese  and  concentrated  milk  are  world  wide.  Butter 
imports  have  been  fairly  steady  since  the  war,  being  larger  than 
before  1914.  Exports  of  cheese  have  steadily  increased  since  1919  but 
as  yet  have  failed  to  reach  pre-war  levels. 

Switzerland  was  one  of  the  first  countries  in  the  export  field  for 
concentrated  milk.  Although  exports  increased  to  73,940,079  pounds 
in  ]926,  they  are  still  below  the  pre-war  level  (table  91). 

Russia. — Before  the  war  Russia  was  an  important  exporter  of 
dairy  products,  and  since  1923  the  exports  of  butter  have  been  appear- 

6i  Keport  submitted  by  John  Farr  Simmons,  American  Consul,  Riga,  Latvia, 
July  12,  1926,  furnished  to  author  by  W.  G.  Jamison,  Specialist,  Perishable 
Products,  U.  S.  Dept.  Commerce,  Oct.  9,  1926. 

62  Landbrugsraadet.  Landbrugsraadets  Meddelelser  (Agricultural  Council's 
Communications),  1927  (27)  :  p.  492.     Copenhagen,  Denmark.     1927. 


170  UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT    STATION 

ing  again  in  large  amounts.  Care  should  be  taken  in  comparing 
present  statistics  with  those  for  pre-war  periods.  Several  important 
dairy  areas — namely  Esthonia,  Latvia,  Finland,  Lithuania,  and  a 
portion  of  Poland  have  become  independent.  It  is  very  probable  that 
if  comparable  statistics  were  available  the  butter  exports  would  be 
approaching  normal.  Some  indication  of  the  recovery  of  the  export 
trade  can  be  obtained  from  table  89  and  the  following  data  may  also 
be  of  interest  in  this  connection.  Butter  exports  for  the  fiscal  year 
1925-1926  amounted  to  60,026,849  pounds,  compared  with  53,981,836 
pounds  in  1924-1925,  and  49,530,748  pounds  in  1923-1924.63 

Sweden. — In  common  with  the  other  Baltic  areas,  Sweden  pro- 
duces considerable  amounts  of  butter.  Although  production  is 
approxmately  the  same  as  before  the  war,  less  butter  has  been  ex- 
ported because  of  the  increased  domestic  consumption.  Exports  since 
1918  have  shown  an  upward  trend  along  with  that  in  production.  The 
quantity  exported  in  1925  was  approximately  50  per  cent  of  that 
from  1913-1915.  While  the  per-capita  consumption  of  butter  in 
Sweden  was  over  70  per  cent  greater  in  1925  than  in  1913,  it  has  been 
declining  since  the  peak  year,  1921. 


OLEOMARGARINE 

Relation  to  Butter. — In  the  analysis  of  the  dairy  industry  a  con- 
sideration of  animal  and  vegetable  oils  cannot  be  ignored.  The  rapid 
increase  in  the  production  of  the  latter  has  presented  problems  to 
the  dairy  and  swine  industries.  Both  of  the  oils  have  been  manu- 
factured into  compounds  generally  referred  to  as  oleomargarine.  The 
product  in  its  original  form  was  produced  as  a  substitute  for  butter, 
but  by  large  sections  of  the  population,  especially  in  Europe,  it  is 
also  used  as  a  lard  substitute.  Vegetable  oils  have  been  increasing  in 
importance,  and  in  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine,  in  the  United 
States,  cocoanut  oil  is  now  the  most  largely  utilized  of  all  the  oils. 

Considering  the  long-time  trend  (since  1887)  the  production  of 
oleomargarine  has  been  relatively  more  rapid  than  has  been  the  growth 
of  population.  Taking  into  consideration  a  short  trend  (since  1920) 
a  decline  in  production  will  be  noted.  Considering  only  the  long-time 
trend  there  has  been  a  decided  increase  in  the  apparent  per-capita 
consumption  of  oleomargarine  (fig.  41,  p.  172). 


63  Landbrugsraadet.     Landbrugsraadets  Meddelelser  (Agricultural  Council's 
Communications),  1927   (9)  :  p.  213.     Copenhagen,  Denmark.     1927. 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS  OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY 


171 


TABLE  93 
Production  of  Oleomargarine  in  the  United  States,  1887-1926 

(Thousand  pounds— i.e.,  000  omitted) 


Year  ending  June  30 

Year  ending 

June  30 

Year  ending 

June  30 

Year  ending 

June  30 

1887  (8  mos.)  . 

21,514 
34,326 
35,664 
32,324 
44,392 
44,365 
67,224 
69,622 
56,958 
50,853 

1897 

45,531 
57,516 
83,130 
107,045 
104,944 
126,316 
73,286 
50,203 
52,012 
55,435 

1907 

71,367 
74,188 
92,283 
141,862 
121,163 
128,601 
145,228 
144,021 
145,810 
152,510 

1917 

233,170 

1888 

1898 

1908 

1918 

326,529 

1889.  .. 

1899 

1909 

1919 

359,217 

1890   . 

1900 

1910 

1920 

391,283 

1891 

1901 

1911 

1921 

281,082 

1892 

1902  ... 

1912 

1922 

190,950 

1893 

1903 

1913 

1923 

209,182 

1894 

1904 

1914 

1924 

239,699 

1895 

1905 

1915 

1925 

215,402 

1896 

1906 

1916 

1926 

247,920 

Sources  of  data:  Years  1887-1925,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Oleomargarine  produc- 
tion and  consumption  in  the  United  States.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Yearbook,  1925: 
p.  1104.  1926.  1926,  compilations  by  author  from  monthly  data  in  U.  S.  Dept. 
Agr.     Crops  and  Markets. 


TABLE  94 

Monthly  Production  of  Oleomargarine  Expressed  as  Percentages  of  Total 
Annual  Production,  United  States,  1916-1926 


Year 


1916 
1917 
1918 
1919 
1920 
1921 
1922 
1923 
1924 
1925 
1926 


Jan. 


6.7 
6.6 
9.4 
11.2 
10.0 
11.0 
8.8 
9.1 
10.7 
8.2 
9.3 


Feb. 


7.3 
7.0 

10.4 
5.8 
88 

10.0 
7.9 
8.2 
9.9 
7.4 
8.5 


Mar. 


8.5 
8.0 
9.2 
8.0 
10.2 
10.9 
8.6 
9.2 
9.7 


Apr. 


7.8 
8.2 
6.7 
9.3 
8.6 
9.1 
7.5 
8.3 
8.8 
8.0 
8.1 


May 


7.7 
8.7 
6.8 
8.4 
9.7 
6.5 
7.5 
7.7 
7.6 
7.5 
7.3 


June 


6.5 
5.6 
5.3 
6.7 
4.1 
6.7 
6.2 
6.6 
6.5 
7.4 


July 


5.0 
5.9 
5.8 
6.6 
6.6 
5.1 
6.6 
5.8 
6.6 
6.8 


Aug. 


6.3 
7.0 
5.2 
7.3 
7.2 
8.0 
7.1 
7.3 
6.9 
7.4 


Sept. 


8.6 
9.3 
8.3 
7  4 
8.5 
8.1 
7.7 
8.4 
8.3 


Oct. 


10.6 
11.9 
12.5 
9.6 
8.5 


8.7 
11.0 


Nov. 


12.1 
10.3 

9.4 
10.1 
8.2 
8.7 
10.4 
9.8 
7.4 
10.4 


Dec. 


12.8 
10.6 
10.7 
11.0 
7.0 
8.6 
11.5 
10.2 
8.8 
10.3 
10.2 


Total 


100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100  0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 


Sources  of  data:  Computations  by  author  based  upon  data  in  following: 
1917-1922,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Oleomargarine  manufactured  by  months.  U.  S. 
Dept.  Agr.,  Yearbook,  1923:  928-929.  1924.  1923,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Oleomar- 
garine manufactured  by  months,  1923.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Yearbook,  1924:  p.  892. 
1925.  1924-1925,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Oleomargarine  production  by  months.  U.  S. 
Dept.  Agr.,  Yearbook,  1926:  p.  1088.  1927.  1926,  U.  S.  Dept.  Commerce.  Pro- 
duction of  oleomargarine.     Survey  of  Current  Business,  66:  p.  81.     1927. 


172 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Parallel  with  the  increase  in  the  consumption  of  oleomargarine  in 
the  United  States  may  be  observed  a  similar  increase  in  Europe. 
Table  97  (p.  174)  gives  a  comparison  between  the  consumption  of 
certain  European  countries  in  1913  and  1924. 

Price  Relationship  of  Butter  and  Oleomargarine. — There  is  a  high 
degree  of  correlation64  between  the  wholesale  prices  of  butter  and 
oleomargarine.  It  is  generally  admitted  that  the  price  of  the  latter 
product  is  based  upon  that  of  the  former. 


Pounds 


SI  /"> 

3.0 
Z.0 

/.o 

Tr&rnz 

t 

/890- 

/9Z<8 

8 

.7 

pS>>J 

.6 

~5 
A 

.1 

1887  1890 


1900 


/9/0 


/9ZO        J9Z7 


Fig.  41. — Apparent  per-capita  consumption  of  oleomargarine  in  the  United 
States,  1887-1926.  The  long-time  trend  in  the  apparent  per-capita  consumption 
of  oleomargarine  has  been  upward.  If  the  short  period  since  1920  is  considered, 
a  considerable  drop  is  in  evidence.  Data  from  table  95.  The  equation  for  the 
line  of  trend  is  log  y  =  2.07264  +  0.01772  #,  origin  1908. 


G4  Coefficient  of  correlation  r=  0.843  based  upon  wholesale  prices  of  92-score 
butter,  New  York,  and  wholesale  prices  of  oleomargarine,  as  reported  by  the 
Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics.  Data  for  period  1913-1924  was  used.  In  calculating 
cycles  of  prices  three-year  moving  averages  of  both  butter  and  oleomargarine  were 
employed.  The  relationship  would  remain  intact  had  Chicago  instead  of  New 
York  prices  been  used. 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS  OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY 


173 


TABLE  95 

Per-capita  Consumption  of  Oleomargarine  in  the  United  States,  1887-1926, 

Year  Ending  June  30 

(Pounds) 


1887 

0  35 
.53 
.54 
.49 
.67 
.65 
.97 
.97 
.68 

0.64 

1897 

0.57 

.73 

1.04 

1.36 

1.30 

1.54 

0  81 

.54 

.53 

.51 

1907 

0.76 
.81 
.99 
1.51 
1.26 
1.32 
1.48 
1.46 
1.42 
1.47 

1917.. 

2.23 

1888 

1898 

1899.. 

1908 

1918 

3.11 

1889 

1909 

1919... 

3  28 

1890 

1900 

1901 

1910 

1920 

3.49 

1891 

1911 

1921 

2  58 

1892 

1902 

1912 

1922 

1.73 

1893 

1903 

1913 

1923 

1.85 

1894 

1904 

1914 

1924 

2.11 

1895 

1905 

1915 

1925 

1.87 

1896.. 

1906 

1916 

1926 

2  12 

Sources  of  data:  1887-1908.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Oleomargarine  production  and 
consumption  in  the  United  States.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Yearbook,  1924:  p.  892.  1925. 
1909-1926,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Oleomargarine  production  and  consumption  in  the 
United  States.     U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Yearbook,  1926:  p.  1087.     1927. 


TABLE  96 

Total  Sales  and  Per-capita  Consumption  of  Oleomargarine  in  California, 

1919-1926 


Year  ending  June  30 

Pounds  of 

oleomargarine 

sold 

2 

Population  of 

California 

January  1 

3 

Apparent  per-capita 

consumption 

pounds 

4 

1919 

6,945,467 
10,538,639 
13,633,522 
10,938,234 
12,481,326 
16,034,620 
14,611,538 
19,561,087 
17,922,107 

3,321,193 
3,426,861 
3,588,606 
3,750,351 
3,912,096 
4,073,841 
4,235,586 
4,397,331 
4,559,076 

2.09 

1920 

3.08 

1921 

3.80 

1922 

2.92 

1923 

3.19 

1924 

3.94 

1925 

3.45 

1926 

4.45 

1927 

3.93 

Source  of  data:  column  2,  Bur.  of  Dairy  Control,  Calif.  Dept.  Agr.;  column  3, 
1920  U.  S.  Census;  1925,  mean  of  July  1  estimates  by  Census  Bureau  for  1925 
and  1926 ;  other  estimates  by  author  based  upon  1920  census  and  estimates  for 
1925  and  1926;  column  4,  calculations  by  the  author. 


174 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Production  of  Oleomargarine. — A  comparison  of  tables  15  and  94, 
together  with  figure  43,  clearly  indicates  a  negative  correlation  be- 
tween butter  and  oleomargarine  production.  Relatively  high  butter 
production  and  low  prices  make  for  relatively  low  production  of 
oleomargarine  and  vice  versa.  Mere  inspection  of  statistics  of  butter 
consumption  (table  25)  would  indicate  that  the  period  1917-1921 
was  below  normal,  while  the  money  price  was  high.  Figure  41  clearly 
indicates  that  during  these  same  years  there  was  an  above-normal 
consumption  of  oleomargarine. 


TABLE  97 

Apparent  Per-capita  Consumption  of  Oleomargarine  in  Certain  Countries 

of  Europe,  1913,  1924 

(Pounds) 


Year 

United 
Kingdom 

Holland 

Germany 

Belgium 

France 

Denmark 

Norway 

Sweden 

1913..... 

1924 

7.76 
11.77 

4.40 
15.69 

7.93 
12.34 

3.32 

7.42 

0.88 
1.54 

33.06 
45.63 

24.03 
35.27 

9.92 
12.27 

Sources  of  data:  Imperial  Economic  Committee.  Eeport  on  marketing  and  pre- 
paring for  market  of  foodstuffs  produced  within  the  Empire.  Fourth  report — 
Dairy  produce,  pp.  1-147.  7  diag.  His  Majesty's  Stationery  Office.  London, 
England.     1926. 


Consumption  of  Oleomargarine  in  California. — Since  dealers  in 
oleomargarine  must  be  licensed  and  a  federal  tax  is  levied  on  the 
product  sold,  accurate  information  on  the  amount  sold  can  be  obtained. 
Since  1919  there  has  been  a  steady  increase  in  the  amount  of  oleo- 
margarine sold  and  in  the  apparent  per-capita  consumption  in  Cali- 
fornia. This  increase  has  been  realized  through  extended  advertising. 
The  manufacturers  in  this  state  have  utilized  vegetable  oils  in  the 
production  of  oleomargarine  and  so  have  not  had  to  overcome  the 
prejudice  against  a  product  made  from  animal  oils.  Monthly  data 
for  this  state  during  the  three  years  1924-1926  indicate  that  larger 
sales  for  oleomargarine  are  made  during  the  months  of  relatively  high 
prices  for  butter  and  vice  versa. 


Bul.  437 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY    INDUSTRY 


175 


Pier  Cent 
of  Tot. 

raorly 

Prod. 
IZ 

// 

>o 

9 

e 

7 

e 

s 

4- 


/9,r^\  y 

— ^ 

.--' 

\ 

^ 

* 

/  /'^s/9Z/ 

<£~~ 

o~ 

v> 

n\ 

-& 

/9Z4- 

w~00~ 

> 

-\ 

fc^— •— 

\ 

/ 

\ 

\ 

." 

. 

Apr 


lot/ 


Acq. 


Ssp+.         Ocrh. 


Fig.  42. — Monthly  production  of  oleomargarine  in  the  United  States  expressed 
as  a  percentage  of  the  total  annual  production,  1917,  1921,  and  1924.  Oleomar- 
garine is  generally  produced  in  large  amounts  from  September  to  April.  If  this 
figure  is  compared  with  figures  11  and  43,  it  will  be  seen  that  production  is  just 
the  opposite  that  of  creamery-butter  production.     Data  from  table  94. 


\ 

y£ 

u-hf, 

w 

/ 
/ 

'V 

—  . 

^«< 

\ 

/ 

> 

7\ 

^" 

\ 

/ 

X 

i 

/ 

f  \ 

\ 

/ 

/ 

\ 

' 

S 

/' 

V 

V 

,'" 

/ 

* o 

sen 

arq 

qr/n 

b- 

*>** 

\ 

[-"" 

H 

-Jo/i.reA  Mar.   Apr.    rloy  June  July   Aug.   Sept  Oct.    Nov    Doc    Jon.     Feb     Mar.    Apr    rToy  June  July    Aug.    5opt  Oct.    Nov.    Oec 
/9Z4  I9ZS 

Fig.  43. — Monthly  production  of  creamery-butter  and  oleomargarine  in  per- 
centages of  total  yearly  production,  1924-1925.  While  the  amounts  of  butter 
and  oleomargarine  vary  from  month  to  month  and  from  year  to  year,  the  season 
for  oleomargarine  manufacture  is  generally  the  reverse  of  that  for  butter  manu- 
facture. The  largest  amounts  of  oleomargarine  are  manufactured  in  the  fall  and 
winter  months.  The  peak  of  butter  production,  on  the  other  hand,  occurs  during 
spring  and  summer.     Data  from  tables  15  and  94. 


176  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TUBERCULOSIS 

Dairy  stock  from  within  the  State  of  California  have  been  found 
to  be  better  producers  than  the  majority  of  cattle  which  are  shipped 
in  from  outside  states.  For  this  reason  and  also  because  there  would 
be  a  saving  in  time  and  freight  charges,  it  would  seem  highly  desirable 
that  stock  necessary  for  southern  California  and  other  areas  be  pur- 
chased from  within  the  state.  Until  the  passage  of  a  tuberculin-test 
ordinance  by  Los  Angeles  County65  from  75  to  90  per  cent  of  the  cows 
originated  in  the  central  and  northern  sections  of  the  state.66 

Estimates  made  by  the  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry  and  the  Cali- 
fornia State  Department  of  Agriculture  indicate  that  the  percentage 
of  tuberculosis  in  cattle  in  California  is  high  (fig.  44).  Both  of  the 
agencies  mentioned  have  been  cooperating  with  livestock  owners  for 
several  years  in  tuberculin-testing  individual  herds  of  cattle  for 
accreditation.  Cooperative  work  in  testing  all  of  the  cattle  in  Modoc 
and  Lassen  counties  has  resulted  in  materially  reducing  the  extent 
of  the  infection.  Area  work  is  being  carried  on  in  Tehama  County 
at  the  present  time.  A  number  of  counties  have  passed  ordinances 
similar  to  that  of  Los  Angeles  County.  The  dairyman  in  the  badly 
infected  areas  will  undoubtedly  experience  increased  difficulties  in 
disposing  of  his  dairy  stock. 

1 '  One  of  the  handicaps  in  conducting  tuberculosis-eradication  work 
in  California  is  the  policy  of  the  state  not  to  provide  funds  for  the 
payment  of  indemnity  for  the  cattle  condemned  and  destroyed.  In- 
demnity is  being  paid  in  practically  all  the  other  states.  For  instance, 
in  the  State  of  New  York  there  is  made  available  annually  by  the 
legislature  $3,500,000  to  reimburse  owners  whose  cattle  are  condemned 
and  destroyed  on  account  of  tuberculosis.  Pennsylvania,  Illinois,  and 
Wisconsin  have  approximately  $1,000,000  per  annum  for  the  same 
purpose,  and  the  other  states  have  amounts  less  than  those  enumerated 
herein."67  The  federal  government  has  contributed  to  a  state  in- 
demnification fund  in  instances  where  the  states  have  made  appro- 
priations. Since  California  has  not  made  such  appropriations  in  the 
past,  such  federal  money  as  might  have  come  to  California  has  been 
used  in  other  states.  Congress  appropriated  the  sum  of  $4,878,000 
for  indemnification  during  the  fiscal  year  beginning  July  1,  1927. G8 

65  Los  Angeles  County  Ordinance  No.  1415   (New  Series).     1926. 
so  Statement  by  Col.  Ben  A.  Ehoades  to  author,  Mar.  19,  1927. 

67  Quotation  from  a  letter  of  J.  E.  Mohler,  Chief  of  Bureau  of  Animal  Indus- 
try, U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  to  author,  January  3,  1927. 

68  Letter  from  R.  P.  Steddom,  Acting  Chief  of  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry, 
to  author,  August  19,  1927. 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY 


177 


3s  B"  -  & 

GO   C3     " 

■    3 

Oh 


>1  t> 

»    3    £- 


<rt-   <T>     — .   M     "» 

i>  o   "^   o   o 
OK}  3  ,_,.  2   <. 

5  S  Q  ^g. 

S>3  *  5£.o 

3    3    2. 
P    ca    c    3    c+ 

fD     Hj  <B     3"^ 
^  3-    M.   o     " 

6  -J    HlJ9    ? 
tf    33    (B  3_ 

h*   EI  E£  o    o 

3     £3 

%•  i% 

2o|| 
^  i— i 

3    ^   as  - 

"  2.  *  SS 

3    ts*  P  S 

5»Ja 

&o^    3' 

Strife 

—  -s    3 

o  ST. 

3    P    <-f 
P    M»  ffl 

■  O    rt- 
^  .1     n    ro 

?»  $***$ 

B3    O    i—1  3 

•5  sj  •  g 


II  II  II        o   > 

go  oo  go     z5 

fatitbjjg0 


s  •  i  i  li 

-   s   is    ^    Sr 

n>     o      S      w      o  m 


5    g 


178  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


FREIGHT    AND    EXPRESS    RATES 

In  the  discussion  of  the  comparative  advantages  of  various  areas 
of  the  western  states  for  butter  and  cheese  production  for  California 
markets,  shipping  points  in  this  state  have  a  considerable  advantage 
(table  99).  In  addition  to  freight  charges,  the  icing  charge  would 
necessarily  be  less  than  from  Rocky  Mountain  points.  Charges  from 
the  latter  points  to  Pacific  Coast  markets  are,  on  the  other  hand,  less 
than  to  either  middle  western  or  eastern  markets. 


SOURCES  OF  CURRENT   INFORMATION   ON   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY 

Dairymen  and  others  interested  in  following  the  current  de- 
velopments in  the  dairy  industry  will  find  the  following  government 
publications  of  value: 

1.  Daily  Market  Reports  of  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics, 
issued  from  the  local  office  at  San  Francisco,  contain  wholesale  prices 
of  creamery  butter  on  the  principal  markets  of  the  Pacific  Coast, 
together  with  selected  markets  in  other  sections  of  the  country. 
Cheese  quotations  are  also  given  for  San  Francisco  and  the  Wisconsin 
primary  markets.  The  cold-storage  movement  on  the  coast  and  in  the 
country  at  large  is  reported  regularly.  Exports  and  foreign  destina- 
tions of  dairy  products  cleared  from  San  Francisco  are  reported  every 
two  weeks.    These  reports  are  distributed  free  by  mail  upon  request. 

2.  Weekly  Review  of  the  Butter  Market  at  San  Francisco,  issued 
by  the  representative  of  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics  at 
San  Francisco,  contains  information  concerning  the  trend  and  tone 
of  the  butter  market  at  San  Francisco  and  at  other  points.  The 
origin  of  receipts  of  dairy  and  poultry  products  by  states  at .  San 
Francisco  and  Los  Angeles,  together  with  United  States  cold-storage 
holdings  are  published  at  regular  intervals.  These  reports  are  dis- 
tributed free  by  mail  upon  request. 

3.  A  summary  of  dairy  production  in  California  is  issued  yearly 
by  the  Bureau  of  Dairy  Control,  California  State  Department  of 
Agriculture,  Sacramento,  California.  This  summary  should  be 
obtained  by  those  particularly  interested  in  the  industry  in  this  state. 
The  publication  usually  appears  in  May  or  June.  Single  copies  can 
be  obtained  from  the  above  address  for  25  cents. 

4.  Crops  and  Markets,  published  monthly  by  the  United  States 
Department  of  Agriculture,  contains  current  statistics  covering  almost 


BUL.  437]  ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF   THE  DAIRY   INDUSTRY  179 

all  phases  of  the  dairy  industry.  The  information  on  the  dairy 
industry  consists  chiefly  of  data  on  production,  receipts,  and  storage 
of  dairy  products,  together  with  price  data.  From  time  to  time 
statistics  on  the  dairy-cattle  population  in  the  various  states  and  in 
the  country  are  given.  Craps  and  Markets  may  be  obtained  from 
the  Superintendent  of  Documents,  Government  Printing  Office,  Wash- 
ington, D.  C,  at  a  cost  of  60  cents  a  year.  • 

5.  A  concise  statistical  summary  of  the  production  and  movement 
of  the  more  important  dairy  products  is  reported  monthly  in  The 
Agricultural  Situation,  issued  by  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Eco- 
nomics. A  brief  summary  on  the  dairy  situation  in  the  country  is 
published  regularly.  The  subscription  price  is  25  cents  per  year 
payable  in  cash  or  money  order  to  the  Superintendent  of  Documents, 
Government  Printing  Office,  Washington,  D.  C. 

6.  The  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture's  Yearbook  of 
Agriculture,  which  is  issued  annually,  contains  important  summaries 
of  statistics  of  dairy  cattle  and  dairy  products.  All  phases  of  the 
industry  are  covered  in  these  tables.  As  with  many  other  crops  and 
products,  the  figures  for  the  latest  year  appearing  in  the  yearbook 
are  preliminary  and  may  be  revised  in  the  following  yearbook. 

7.  The  Domestic  Dairy-Markets  Situation,  published  monthly  by 
the  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics,  contains  articles  on  the  foreign 
and  domestic  dairy  situation.  A  summary  of  the  production,  storage, 
and  output  of  butter,  cheese,  and  condensed  and  evaporated  and  dry 
milk  is  published  regularly.  This  publication  may  be  obtained  from 
the  Market  News  Service,  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics,  Room 
427,  Bieber  Bldg.,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Conditions  on  the  cheese  markets  of  the  United  States  are  reported 
weekly  in  the  Review  of  the  American  Cheese  Markets,  published  by 
the  Chicago  office  of  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics,  1209  City 
Hall  Square  Bldg.,  Chicago,  111.  In  addition  to  numerous  articles,  a 
statistical  summary  of  dealers'  stocks  on  hand  and  receipts  at  Chicago, 
New  York,  Boston,  and  Philadelphia  are  reported  regularly. 

9.  The  Fluid  Milk  Market  Report  for  the  United  States  is  pub- 
lished monthly  by  the  Market  News  Service,  Bureau  of  Agricultural 
Economics,  Room  425,  Bieber  Bldg.,  Washington,  D.  C.  It  contains 
prices  paid  to  producers  for  standard  milk  in  the  various  sections  of 
the  country,  together  with  selling  prices  of  dealers  to  both  the  whole- 
sale and  the  retail  trade  in  important  cities  of  the  country. 


180  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

10.  The  Monthly  Condensed  and  Evaporated  Milk  Report  quotes 
prices  paid  by  manufacturers  to  farmers  for  milk  in  different  sections 
of  the  country,  together  with  reports  on  sales  made  by  manufacturers 
at  distributing  points.  Statistics  on  production,  stocks  on  hand,  and 
exports  are  published  regularly,  together  with  news  items  surround- 
ing the  condensed  and  evaporated  milk  industry.  This  mimeographed 
report  may  be  obtained  from  the  Market  News  Service,  Bureau  of 
Agricultural  Economics,  Washington,  D.  C. 

11.  The  Dry  Milk  Market  Report  published  monthly  contains 
reports  of  actual  sales  of  dry  milk  by  manufacturers,  stocks  of  the 
same  on  hand,  and  statistics  of  production  and  foreign  trade.  Com- 
ments on  the  market  situation  are  made  monthly.  These  reports  are 
distributed  free  by  mail  upon  request  by  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural 
Economics,  Washington,  D.  C. 

12.  Monthly  export  reports,  published  by  the  Market  News  Service 
of  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics,  contain  the  quantities  and 
destinations  of  exports  of  dairy  products,  oleomargarine,  and  eggs. 

13.  Articles  on  phases  of  dairying  abroad  appear  every  two  weeks 
in  a  mimeographed  pamphlet  issued  by  the  U.  S.  Department  of 
Commerce,  World  Dairy  and  Poultry  News.  This  is  part  of  a  series 
of  publications  entitled  Foodstuffs  'Round  the  World.  Another  of 
this  series,  Canned  and  Dried  Foods,  published  weekly,  contains 
articles  of  timely  interest  on  the  concentrated-milk  markets  abroad. 
Information  on  subscription  rates  can  be  obtained  from  the  Food- 
stuffs Division,  Department  of  Commerce,  Washington,  D.  C. 


APPENDIX    OF    TABLES 


a  a 
33 


p-p. 

SB 


re  <i 

II 

s-3 


■a  7 

2  » 
3,a 

a. 


H     I 


c 
3^ 

P-CL 

Is 

CD    p* 

3   o> 

o  L, 
a  S 
i— iM 

R» 

3" 
3 


O        Bf 

ta     g. 
a 

rt-       1 

O  c* 

<< 

P       tJ 

c      » 

si    co 
S     1 


CO 
re 

•o 

to 

as 
to 

to 

CP 
<< 
to 

co 
to 

0 

M 

O 

e 
n 

co 

o 

CO 

Date  of  Act 

2    oo 

?    * 

t3 

re 
cr 

•a 

re    to 
cr  o 

re 

►1       OS 

__  re 

cr 

?  a  p  ^ 
&ga& 

5ct 

per  lb. 

not  less 

than  25% 

to 

OS 

to 

o 

S3 

•a 
re 

-1       OS 

.—  re 
cr 

S-^a  re 
8|.*§ 

8 

re 
"    to 

re 
re 

re 
"*    to 

EL 

3? 

r;re 

2  to 
EL 

re 

*>    en 
era    o 

EL 

5? 

re 
re 

re 

•"»     in 
(W    re 

EL 

2  tj 

ro  re 

3S- 

■a 

re 
_^  re 

d 

re    a 
a   » 

re    3 

p.  re 

re 

•0 

re 

cr 

re 
re 

to 

re 

•c 
re 

j? 

o 

o 
a 
p- 

re 

i 

re 
P- 

3. 
J? 

5s  « 

S.I 

1 

S  -  1  9 

—  ^        a* 
cr  «          2 

to 

o 

re 
re 

re 
re 

W 

re 

■-<     tn 
>—   » 

cr 

OR    r" 

E5  P? 

re 

1    1 

re 
cr 

4 

Er 

o 
re- 

g 

i? 

■a 

o 

1 

■a 

re 

>—  w 
cr 

O 

re 
P 

3 

5s  o 

CO 

E 

3 

to 

o 

£5 

re 
P. 

s 

^ 

|3(=2 
fro.' 

182 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Us 

o 
o 

§§ 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 
o 

§§ 

o        ooooooooooo 

•   4) 

£1 

c 

■*        ^^.^.^l^^^^,^,^,^ 

§ 

CM             NNNN«N«NNN« 

-TJ3 

c3  o 

*        -»—    »        -4— 

^"3  03 

J 

O             OOOOOOOcMI-^iOCN© 
O             OOOOOOOOO^HlOOOCM 

O 

CO             CO    CO    CO    CO    CO    CO    CO    CO    CO    CO    ^ 

73   «- 

*  j> 

J3 

PnpQ 

>J 

O             OOCO»O^H-<*OOt- 

o 

O0             00000)N«OON10 

CM 

J 

lO 

]s 

o         ooooooooooo 
o         ooooooooooo 
o.        o_  o_  o_  o_  o_  o__  o__  o_  o_  o__  o^ 

.  5 

ci 

s 

<M             CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM 

fc-g 

#       ■»—   »       -4— 

^   O   03 

o 

O           OOOOOO-^OSt^^CM 
O             OOOOOOSOO~»OOOCM 

CO             CO    CO    CO    CO    CO    CO    CO    CO    CO    CO    ^ 

05 

*S 

£pq 

i-5 

Hf  hi<  h|»  *  HH                  Hn 

O          OOcor^cocoooiOico 

00             COOOOlNtOKOOiOWN 

o 

^ 

1 

o         ooooooooooo 
o         ooooooooooo 
o_        o_  o_  o_  o_  o_  o_  o_  o_  o_  o_  o_ 

0) 

CO    CO 

a" 

<M             NNNNNNNNNNIN 

2  » 

.5-a 

S 

-3  o 

o 

O            OOO-hO"5O«5C0OO 
O             OOOcO«30503CM«Oa>iO 

CO             nnWMMNNNNcNM 

gs 

SI 

J 

CO             COCOCOC005CMC©»0 

CM 

o 

~*i              -»*<3<-^<lOCOOU5CO 
■^             M*    ^    ^    CO    CO    CO    CO    CO 

o 

h5 

-»* 

1 

O   o 

ooooooo         o        oo 
ooooooo         o        oo 
ooooooo         o         oo 

§  s 

c 

o  o 

O  »*  "*  ^t<  ■*  ^t  ^c         o         oo 

CM     CM 

CMCMCMCMCMCMCM             CM             CMCM 

S 

d£ 

„  o 

o  J  "2 

j 

00 

lOtOCCH^nN             r—             lO«5 

H«  5 

u 

NtOOOOOH*ioW             CM             O"? 

FHi-HrHi-ICN'-lr4r-*                CM                «"H 

CI   >* 

»3 

»    -»- 

3« 

iJ 

OH*5»IS01t!|S^           CM           oo 
N00COCO1IU5NCCNX             U5             N    N 

o 

h5 

,_,^H^Hr-(CMcMe<ICMCM»-"             CM             »-< 

t 

oooooooooo         o         oo 
oooooooooo         o         oo 
°.  °.  °.  °.  °.  °.  °.  °.  °.  °.        °.       °.  °. 

a 

o  o"  o"  o*  o  TtT  ■<*  tjT  rji"  ■<*         o"        o*  o" 

S 

CMCMCMCMCMCMIMCMCMCM             CM             CM    CM 

o  w 

o^ 

J 

coscoaiMcert^MN         t^         io»o 

lOOOO'fCOHtDUJW             CM             •**.-< 

o 

_                  .m^-HC^^H^^h                  (M                              ^H 

fe£ 

s5 

►J 

COMlDCOmHN'**^             CM             CM00 
lC^HOJ^H»^COt^»OCMOO             lO             US    M 

OQ 

s 

—1             .-<    ~H    <M    <M    CM    CO    i-H             CM                      ~* 

aiaj         jcS-^-^oJoS'S         "5         S3  S3 

OO         ccji-ic     oi-ii-i£; 

ES 

s  s 

*"" 

h- 

t 

U 

£ 

o 

T 

o 

C 

ci 

f 

_ai 

g 

C 

t 
I 

I 

£ 

I 

— 

E 

S 

! 

1 

g 

c 

.E 

1 

c 

i 

> 

i 

1 

QQ 

S 
o 

o 


£3 

A0-13 


*s    CU    3" 
3J3  OO 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF   THE  DAIRY   INDUSTRY 


183 


TABLE  100 


Production  of  Butterfat  in  California,  by  Counties  and  Sections,  1919-1926 

(Thousand  pounds — i.e.,  000  omitted) 


Section  and  county 

1919-20 

1920-21 

1921-22 

1922-23 

1923-24 

1925 

1926 

North  Coast: 

Del  Norte 

977 
6,996 

1,084 

7,177 

7 

887 

368 

3,751 
700 

4,341 

1,061 

6,840 

3 

833 

353 

4,814 
517 

3,908 

871 
6,955 

855 

8,039 

10 

1,203 

491 
4,824 

656 
4,500 

1,010 
7,151 

19 
1,060 

216 
4,817 

698 
4,892 

983 

7,377 

Trinity 

24 

790 
346 

4,013 
791 

3,390 

1,096 
547 

4,904 
814 

4,745 

1,127 

256 

4,313 

767 

4,387 

17,303 

18,315 

18,328 

19,932 

21,069 

19,862 

19,233 

South  Coast: 

229 
1,869 
1,410 
1,759 
2,459 
613 
807 
3,289 
2,531 

415 
2,367 
1,417 
1,500 
3,051 
523 
729 
4,306 
2,551 

22 
2,866 
1,770 
1,492 
3,165 
472 
564 
5,393 
2,833 

28 
2,982 
2,263 
1,636 
4,189 
469 
630 
5,432 
3,258 

38 
2,568 
1,899 
1,712 
3,480 
433 
656 
5,070 
3,083 

175 
2,491 
1,654 
1,135 
3,317 
514 
833 
4,968 
3,548 

260 

2,100 

1,536 

1,592 

3,340 

Santa  Cruz 

388 

San  Benito 

746 

5,197 

3,046 

14,966 

16,858 

18,577 

20,888 

18,939 

18,635 

18,206 

Sacramento  Valley: 

Shasta 

131 

330 

1,035 

978 

437 

663 

617 

234 

287 

2,434 

1,058 

1,457 

286 

115 

119 

388 

810 

1,091 

764 

531 

1,006 

143 

212 

2,308 

1,085 

1,125 

214 

273 

203 

332 

1,110 

845 

556 

347 

641 

138 

173 

2,628 

1,465 

1,101 

498 

135 

227 

530 

1,347 

956 

392 

421 

671 

189 

346 

3,351 

1,283 

1,822 

526 

191 

309 

402 

1,089 

1,171 

398 

614 

539 

196 

387 

2,885 

1,439 

1,692 

510 

217 

390 

567 

1,461 

1,310 

412 

696 

666 

190 

322 

2,088 

1,726 

1,425 

230 

206 

510 

Tehama 

426 

Glenn 

1,551 

Butte 

1,207 

Yuba 

452 

748 

Sutter 

615 
207 

Placer 

204 

1,887 

Yolo 

1,689 

Solano 

1,497 

El  Dorado 

327 

169 

10,062 

10,070 

10,173 

12,253 

11,847 

11,689 

11,488 

San  Joaquin  Valley: 

3.601 
54 

8,976 
60 

5,642 

4,157 
82 

9,932 
82 

5,696 
2 

4,932 
38 

9,476 
56 

6,747 
15 

6,377 

42 

10,560 

86 

7,393 

12 

6,911 

44 

11,674 

85 

8,601 

12 

6,723 
31 

9,104 

68 

9,883 

4 

7,276 

67 

9,977 

84 

Merced 

10,256 

5 

184 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  100 — (Continued) 
(Thousand  pounds— i.e.,  000  omitted) 


Section  and  county 

1919-20 

1920-21 

1921-22 

1922-23 

1923-24 

1925 

1926 

San  Joaquin  Valley: — Cont. 

936 
3,405 
4,216 
3,799 
1,298 

1,401 

3,798 
4,740 
4,473 

796 

972 
3,197 
5,441 
5,567 

902 

1,010 
3,701 
6,534 
6,003 
1,306 

1,211 
4,497 
7,014 
5,157 
1,715 

1,524 
4,954 
7,173 
4,318 
1,497 

1,316 
4,948 

Fresno 

Tulare 

8,295 

Kings 

4,730 

1,257 

31,986 

35,157 

37,343 

43,024 

46,922 

45,279 

48,213 

Southern  California: 

Santa  Barbara 

439 

205 

6,331 

385 

512 

635 

1,104 

5,067 

614 

74 

6,680 

633 

846 

1,576 

1,558 

5,465 

563 

67 

7,091 

569 
1,191 
1,046 
1,634 
6,342 

916 
219 
7,547 
938 
1,417 
1,713 
1,729 
6,519 

1,020 
273 
8,109 
1,718 
2,036 
2,400 
1,878 
6,452 

1,377 
509 
11,878 
1,760 
1,564 
1,293 
1,654 
6,371 

1,403 

Ventura 

408 

12,717 

2,319 

1,427 

1,674 

1,732 

6,388 

14,678 

17,448 

18,502 

20,999 

23,886 

26,407 

28,069 

Mountain: 

1,112 
292 
372 
213 
283 
4 

920 
192 
227 
109 
117 

1,340 
260 
302 
161 
159 

1,590 
292 
376 
176 
200 

1,575 
416 
466 
170 
132 
16 

1,298 
551 
594 
187 
302 
19 
19 
202 

1,748 

700 

674 

212 

303 

15 

43 

266 

251 

301 

328 

326 

180 

2,541 

1,816 

2,522 

2,962 

3,102 

3,172 

3,877 

Total 

91,534 

99,663 

105,446 

120,057 

125,274 

125,043 

129,085 

Sources  of  data:  1919-1920,  Hoyt,  C.  F.  California  dairy  products.  California 
State  Dept.  Agr.,  Cir.  3:  p.  34.  1921.  1920-1921,  Frey,  J.  J.  Statistical  report  of 
California  dairy  products.  California  State  Dept.  Agr.,  Special  Pub.  21:  p.  7. 
1922.  1921-1922,  Frey,  J.  J.  Statistical  report  of  California  dairy  products. 
California  State  Dept.  Agr.,  Special  Pub.  30:  p.  8.  1923.  1922-1923,  Frey,  J.  J. 
Statistical  report  of  California  dairy  products,  1922-1923.  California  State 
Dept.  Agr.,  Special  Pub.  39:  p.  7.  1923.  1923-1924,  Frey,  J.  J.  Statistical  report 
of  California  dairy  products,  1923-1924.  California  State  Dept.  Agr.,,  Special 
Pub.  50 :  p.  6.  1924.  1925,  Frey,  J.  J.  Statistical  report  of  California  dairy 
products,  1925.  California  State  Dept.  Agr.,  Special  Pub.  62:  p.  8.  1926.  1926, 
Frey,  J.  J.  Statistical  report  of  California  dairy  products,  1926.  California 
State  Dept.  Agr.,  Special  Pub.  71:  p.  11.     1927. 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY 


185 


TABLE  101 


Manufacture  of  Butter  in  California,  by  Counties  and  Sections,  1919-1926 

(Thousand  pounds — i.e.,  000  omitted) 


Section  and  county 

1919-20 

1920-21 

1921-22 

1922-23 

1923-24 

1925 

1926 

North  Coast: 

1,043 
6,378 

1,088 
7,010 

1,058 
6,543 

948 
6,196 

1,073 
6,824 

1,156 
6,113 

1,251 

6,515 

Trinity 

728 
390 

4,297 
623 

2,519 

964 
422 

4,068 
583 

3,505 

913 

75 

5,048 

221 
1,337 

437 
106 

5,569 
316 

1,356 

483 
118 

5,524 
212 

1,374 

514 
114 

5,750 
248 

1,635 

437 

112 

5,399 

Napa 

211 

1,460 

15,978 

17,640 

15,194 

14,928 

15,608 

15,531 

15,384 

South  Coast: 

San  Francisco 

11,319 
2,323 

29 
27 
245 
254 
115 
447 
3,418 

12,055 

2,133 

33 

19 

235 

220 

145 

531 

4,114 

11,885 

2,371 

18 

11 

162 
178 
133 
522 
3,608 

7,768 

2,046 

21 

4 

224 

192 

117 

544 

4,078 

6,704 

666 
497 
924 
310 
455 
323 
907 
2,555 

677 
638 
898 
443 
367 
300 
813 
2,842 

2,007 

San  Mateo 

217 

Santa  Cruz 

165 

San  Benito 

120 

Monterey 

372 

3,567 

6,639 

6,978 

18,178 

19,486 

18,888 

14,993 

13,153 

Sacramento  Valley: 

Shasta 

116 
351 

1,001 
995 
443 
760 
555 
222 
236 

1,477 
956 
716 
312 
110 

116 
405 
963 

1,107 
853 
568 
937 
141 
181 

1,269 
935 
655 
245 
325 

148 
129 
758 
228 
323 
380 

146 

149 

350 

377 

324 

338 

1 

37 

2 

2,169 

112 

453 

38 

144 

197 

135 

380 

322 

400 

594 

1 

37 

2 

2,917 

107 

407 

38 

168 

293 

360 

Tehama 

Glenn 

1,245 
310 
395 

687 

1,556 

Butte 

383 

Yuba 

411 

489 

Sutter 

7 

Sacramento 

1,751 
119 
74 

2,133 
108 

2,892 

3 

126 

2,082 

Yolo 

105 

2,385 

El  Dorado 

3 

51 

83 

8,249 

8,703 

3,968 

4,640 

5,704 

8,192 

7,856 

San  Joaquin  Valley: 

2,353 
60 

6,525 
28 

4,312 

2,954 
95] 

7,164 
29 

4,028 

1,306 

1,229 

971 

1,116 

1,134 

Stanislaus 

6,374 

7,674 

10 

919 

7,865 
10 

789 

6,835 

9,272 

664 

1,099 

1,080 

186 


UNIVERSITY   OF   CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  101—  (Continued) 
(Thousand  pounds— i.e.,  000  omitted) 


Section  and  county 

1919-20 

1920-21 

1921-22 

1922-23 

1923-24 

1925 

1926 

San  Joaquin  Valley: — Cont. 
Mariposa 

1,086 
3,264 
4,685 
4,548 
1,001 

1,198 
3,056 
5,269 
5,125 

674 

417 
4,045 
4,961 
8,499 

683 

4,270 
2,109 
9,385 
2,267 

6,084 

3,248 

8,079 

634 

5,686 

2,409 

7,508 

306 

5,743 

2,220 

7,781 

286 

Tulare 

Kings 

27,862 

29,593 

26,949 

27,863 

27,681 

24,959 

27,516 

Southern  California: 

402 

4 

78 

16 

12 

24 

431 

5,648 

526 

44 

96 

219 

130 

417 

1,219 

33 

33 

1,046 

5,363 

263 

25 

635 

12 

1 

136 

895 

5,518 

251 

20 

99 
66 
33 
23 
372 
6,228 

304 

910 

23 

4 

1,196 

5,056 

132 

1,291 

11 

1 

1,074 

5,076 

758 

20 

111 

844 

5,008 

6,614 

7,347 

7,537 

7,681 

8,459 

7,484 

7,012 

Mountain: 

1,256 
316 
312 
246 
344 
5 

1,009 
193 
204 
130 
145 

1,418 
230 
133 

1,480 
192 
189 
19 
144 

1,396 

197 

229 

13 

33 

1,449 
344 
264 

1,816 

545 

357 

72 

Sierra 

85 

169 

215 

Mono 

Inyo 

304 

313 

319 

353 

353 

215 

191 

2,784 

1,993 

2,184 

2,378 

2,221 

2,440 

3,197 

Total 

68,127 

72,254 

74,010 

76,976 

78,562 

73,600 

74,118 

Sources  of  data:  1919-1920,  Hoyt,  C.  F.  California  dairy  products.  California 
State  Dept.  Agr.,  Cir.  3:  p.  9.  1921.  1920-1921,  Frey,  J.  J.  Statistical  report  of 
California  dairy  products.  California  State  Dept.  Agr.,  Special  Pub.  21:  p.  7. 
1922.  1921-1922,  Frey,  J.  J.  Statistical  report  of  California  dairy  products. 
California  State  Dept.  Agr.,  Special  Pub.  30:  p.  8.  1923.  1922-1923,  Frey,  J.  J. 
Statistical  report  of  California  dairy  products,  1922-1923.  California  State 
Dept.  Agr.,  Special  Pub.  39:  p.  8.  1923.  1923-1924,  Frey,  J.  J.  Statistical  report 
of  California  dairy  products,  1923-1924.  California  State  Dept.  Agr.,  Special 
Pub.  50 :  p.  6.  1924.  1925,  Frey,  J.  J.  Statistical  report  of  California  dairy 
products,  1925.  California  State  Dept.  Agr.,  Special  Pub.  62:  p.  9.  1926.  1926, 
Frey,  J.  J.  Statistical  report  of  California  dairy  products,  1926.  California 
State  Dept.  Agr.,  Special  Pub.  71:  p.  13.     1927. 

Note. — In  1919-20  and  1920-21  statistics  were  collected  on  the  "production 
of  butter  made  from  cream  produced  in  the  different  counties  of  the  state." 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY 


187 


TABLE  102 


Production  of  Cheese  in  California,  by  Counties  and  Sections,  1919-1926 

(Thousand  pounds— i.e.,  000  omitted) 


Section  and  county 

1919-20 

1920-21 

1921-22 

1922-23 

1923-24 

1925 

1926 

North  Coast: 
Del  Norte 

400 
1,112 

597 
663 

503 
813 

429 
856 

38 
732 

101 
793 

70 

743 

Trinity 

279 
3 
594 
263 
945 

189 

235 

226 

597 

474 

336 

594 
262 
612 

628 
212 
624 

878 
179 
350 

971 
123 
412 

581 

15 

970 

539 

698 

3,597 

2,917 

3,016 

2,918 

2,873 

2,934 

2,385 

South  Coast: 

10 
119 
73 

Alameda 

48 
308 
4 
883 
193 
571 
1,146 
319 

93 
409 

11 
906 
219 
638 
1,417 
255 

137 
63 

247 
112 

371 
151 

611 

San  Mateo 

106 

Santa  Clara 

2,063 
143 
44 
808 
192 

634 
206 
348 
849 
204 

773 
127 
488 
691 
18 

526 
107 
703 
647 
54 

584 

Santa  Cruz 

85 

San  Benito 

587 

Monterey 

441 

32 

3,471 

3,949 

3,453 

2,441 

2,456 

2,559 

2,448 

Sacramento  Valley: 

Shasta 

45 

30 

36 

87 

20 

Tehama 

5 

Butte 

115 
71 
31 

111 

14 

36 
116 
120 

Yuba 

Colusa 

Sutter 

109 

44 

29 

Nevada 

Placer 

Sacramento 

395 
61 
21 

585 
117 

92 

418 
33 

105 
46 

32 
34 

5 

29 

Yolo 

36 

Solano 

3 

El  Dorado 

Amador 

849 

1,112 

597 

195 

182 

54 

44 

San  Joaquin  Valley: 

842 

971 

342 

391 

148 

133 

217 

1,707 

885 

797 

1,398 

1,258 

1,176 

1,079 

989 

840 

1 

122 

353 

81 

453 

188 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  102 — (Continued) 
(Thousand  pounds— i.e.,  000  omitted) 


Section  and  county 

1919-20 

1920-21 

1921-22 

1922-23 

1923-24 

1925 

1926 

San  Joaquin  Valley: — Cont. 

14 
155 

200 

150 
11 

5 

11 

6 

5 

3 

7 

Kings 

29 

3,937 

2,858 

1,140 

1,917 

1,762 

1,407 

1,760 

Southern  California: 

158 

Ventura 

20 

27 

2 

8 

2 

25 

434 

5 

224 

Orange 

22 
636 

23 
157 

53 
160 

56 

Imperial 

300 

248 

516 

837 

497 

185 

213 

300 

248 

796 

Mountain: 

56 
93 
167 

139 
107 
135 

13 
52 
120 

6 

16 

181 

2 
265 
107 

3 
145 

58 

477 

117 

92 

12 

328 

381 

185 

203 

374 

206 

686 

Total 

13,018 

11,715 

8,575 

7,888 

7,948 

7,408 

8,119 

Sources  of  data:  1919-1920,  Hoyt,  C.  F.  California  dairy  products.  California 
State  Dept.  Agr.,  Cir.  3:  p.  13.  1921.  1920-1921,  Frey,  J.  J.  Statistical  report 
of  California  dairy  products.  California  State  Dept.  Agr.,  Special  Pub.  21:  p.  8. 
1922.  1921-1922,  Frey,  J.  J.  Statistical  report  of  California  dairy  products. 
California  State  Dept.  Agr.,  Special  Pub.  30  p.  9.  1923.  1922-1923,  Frey,  J.  J. 
Statistical  report  of  California  dairy  products,  1922-1923.  California  State 
Dept.  Agr.,  Special  Pub.  39:  p.  8.  1923.  1923-1924,  Frey,  J.  J.  Statistical  re- 
port of  California  dairy  products,  1923-1924.  California  State  Dept.  Agr.,  Special 
Pub.  50:  p.  8.  1924.  1925,  Frey,  J.  J.  Statistical  report  of  California  dairy 
products,  1925.  California  State  Dept.  Agr.,  Special  Pub.  32 :  p.  10.  1926. 
1926,  Frey,  J.  J.  Statistical  report  of  California  dairy  products,  1926.  California 
State  Dept.  Agr.,  Special  Pub.  71:  p.  15.     1927. 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS   OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY 


189 


TABLE  103 


Production  of  Ice  Cream  in  California,  by  Counties  and  Sections,  1921-192( 

(Hundred  gallons— i.e.,  00  omitted) 


Section  and  county 

1921-22 

1922-23 

1923-24 

1925 

1926 

North  Coast: 

55 
566 

52 
465 

59 

Humboldt 

Trinity 

277 

431 

593 

23 

147 

96 

403* 

221 

31 

214 
80 
596 
425 
26 

178 

3 
456 
162 

32 

153 

Sonoma 

Napa 

954] 

308 

48 

688 
474 

Marin 

25 

1,610 

1,084 

1,518 

1,859 

2,169 

South  Coast: 

San  Francisco 

7,483 

5,458 

138 

142 

1,293 

128 

42 

274 

217 

12,129 

5,902 

124 

92 

716 

93 

67 

286 

248 

16,802 

12,437 

198 

47 

492 

410 

41 

293 

293 

19,566 

12,807 

105 

352 

1,972 

388 

44 

538 

467 

12,900 

Alameda 

16,970 

San  Mateo 

167 

Contra  Costa 

502 

Santa  Clara 

2,083 

Santa  Cruz 

503 

San  Benito 

38 

Monterey 

823 

San  Luis  Obispo 

596 

15,176 

19,658 

31,014 

36,239 

34,583 

Sacramento  Valley: 
Shasta 

21 
85 

34 
36 

137 

92 

6 

578 

511 

44 

251 

79 

61 

564 

567 

50 

298 

Tehama 

8 

Glenn 

19 

Butte 

139 

531 

43 

124 

323 

62 

584 

Yuba 

438 

Colusa 

53 

Sutter 

Nevada 

66 

66 

122 

114 

124 

Placer 

Sacramento 

3,970 
266 
527 

3,887 
308 
366 

4,378 
315 
549 

4,387 
544 

568 

4,803 

Yolo 

5!  8 

Solano 

366 

El  Dorado 

Amador 

81 

100 

109 

137 

161 

5,731 

5,306 

6,841 

7,322 

7,452 

San  Joaquin  Valley: 

San  Joaquin 

1,908 

2,035 

2,469 

2,277 

3,387 

972 
114 
237 

1,073 

81 

248 

983 

85 

302 

1,054 
105 
290 

1,181 

121 

37 

190 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  103 — (Continued) 
(Hundred  gallons— i.e.,  00  omitted) 


Section  and  county 

1921-22 

1922-23 

1923-24 

1925 

1926 

San  Joaquin  Valley: — Cont. 
Mariposa 

Madera 

4,135 
675 
162 

1,257 

5,367 
719 
149 

4,265 

5,312 

672 

91 

1,129 

6,421 

433 

89 

1,438 

5,757 
115 

Tulare 

35 

1,640 

9,460 

13,939 

11,043 

12,107 

12,273 

Southern  California: 

319 

62 

268 

150 

25,239 

344 

1,143 

81 

2,444 

72 

394 

145 

48,888 

567 

1,145 

96 

4,759 

593 

559 

145 

Los  Angeles 

33,882 

84 

868 

493 

3,451 

67 

34,882 

253 

1,405 

473 

3,991 

51 

53,953 

San  Bernardino 

971 

Orange 

1,255 

695 

San  Diego 

5,737 

673 

39,164 

41,117 

29,741 

56,587 

63,988 

Mountain: 

Siskiyou 

170 

360 

306 

337 

434 

Lassen 

82 

195 

127 

69 

37 

39 

34 

253 

555 

433 

445 

505 

Total 

71,393 

81,658 

90,589 

114,559 

120,971 

The  amounts  of  ice  cream  manufactured  in  1919-1920  and   1921-1922  were  estimated  at  6,468,745 
and  7,572,874  gallons  respectively. 


Sources  of  data:  1921-1922,  Frey,  J.  J.  Statistical  report  of  California 
dairy  products.  California  State  Dept.  Agr.,  Special  Pub.  30:  p.  10.  1923.  1922- 
1923,  Frey,  J.  J.  Statistical  report  of  California  dairy  products,  1922-1923. 
California  State  Dept.  Agr.,  Special  Pub.  39:  p.  9.  1923.  1923-1924,  Frey,  J.  J. 
Statistical  report  of  California  dairy  products,  1923-1924.  California  State 
Dept.  Agr.,  Special  Pub.  50 :  p.  9.  1924.  1925,  Frey,  J.  J.  Statistical  report  of 
California  dairy  products,  1925.  California  State  Dept.  Agr.,  Special  Pub.  62:  p. 
12.  1926.  1926,  Frey,  J.  J.  Statistical  report  of  California  dairy  products,  1926. 
California  State  Dept.  Agr.,  Special  Pub.  71:  p.  17.     1927. 


Bul.  437] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS  OF   THE   DAIRY   INDUSTRY 


191 


TABLE  104 


Distribution  of  Market  Milk  in  California,  by  Counties  and  Sections, 

1921-1926 
(Thousand  gallons — i.e.,  000  omitted) 


Section  and  county 

1921-22 

1922-23 

1923-24 

1925 

1926 

North  Coast: 

Del  Norte 

24 
873 
11 
530 
262 
1,174 
273 
826 

35 
661 

37 

816 

32 

666 

248 

1,435 

315 

1,339 

60 
572 

60 
132 
104 
860 
373 
1,162 

60 

913 

Trinity . 

25 

673 
248 

1,483 
378 

1,134 

357 

103 

1,143 

456 

1,127 

3,973 

4,612 

4,889 

3,323 

4,184 

South  Coast: 

12,090 

8,344 

574 

1,326 

2,373 

742 

161 

266 

337 

12,532 

8,026 

486 

1,179 

2,127 

746 

362 

576 

406 

14,334 

8,870 

391 

1,121 

2,422 

671 

277 

762 

480 

15,392 

11,163 

1,119 

653 

2,818 

925 

366 

909 

545 

15,762 

Alameda 

12,568 

San  Mateo 

1,028 

Contra  Costa 

1,055 

Santa  Clara 

3,084 

Santa  Cruz 

618 

San  Benito 

160 

807 

460 

26,213 

26,439 

29,328 

33,889 

35,543 

Sacramento  Valley: 

Shasta 

105 
239 
217 
879 
172 
335 
55 
252 
293 
3,375 
286 
957 
603 
266 

151 
263 
159 
666 
212 
197 
36 
180 
398 

2,616 
463 

1,076 
415 
186 

147 

263 
159 
909 
260 
189 
97 
179 
487 
2,469 
481 
918 
415 
186 

157 
333 
470 
641 
391 
318 
318 
125 
458 

2,973 
351 

1,013 
125 
125 

198 

Tehama 

161 

Glenn 

120 

Butte 

595 

Yuba 

324 

Colusa 

230 

Sutter 

117 

Nevada 

125 

Placer 

476 

Sacramento 

3,366 

Yolo 

385 

Solano 

1,126 

El  Dorado 

125 

Amador 

126 

8,035 

7,018 

7,160 

7,799 

7,474 

San  Joaquin  Valley: 

San  Joaquin 

1,502 
42 
604 
140 
237 

1,991 

40 

620 

158 

589 

3,127 
40 
716 
159 

597 

1,915 
60 
771 

77 
501 

1,723 
65 

Stanislaus 

729 
75 

345 

192 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  104—  (Continued) 

(Thousand  gallons — i.e.,  000  omitted) 


Section  and  county 

1921-22 

1922-23 

1923-24 

1925 

1926 

San  Joaquin  Valley: — Cont. 

38 
64 
1,759 
828 
400 
916 

37 

127 

1,726 

1,081 

356 

1,109 

27 

140 

1,726 

1,134 

349 

1,336 

13 

177 
2,287 
1,091 

456 
1,524 

16 

Madera 

Fresno 

Tulare 

120 
2,052 
1,411 

253 

Kern 

1,840 

6,531 

7,834 

9,349 

8,870 

8,629 

Southern  California: 

795 

252 

19,891 

1,036 

1,145 

548 
2,624 

310 

'    1,062 

560 

'24,548 

1,440 

1,141 

1,018 

4,029 

282 

1,067 

679 

30,227 

1,810 

1,998 
957 

2,827 
417 

1,223 
1,113 
36,321 
1,216 
1,260 

666 
4,287 

669 

935 

1,058 

41,019 

1,605 

1,967 

820 

3,677 

772 

26,600 

34,079 

39,982 

46,754 

51,855 

Mountain: 

Siskiyou 

Modoc 

483 
299 
119 
156 
49 

641 
350 

429 
182 
87 

639 
350 
370 

182 
87 

175 
75 

490 
60 
60 
60 
60 
91 

219 
70 
195 

100 

20 

95 

134 

134 

75 

1,201 

1,824 

1,763 

1,071 

678 

Total 

72,552 

81,806 

92,470 

101,706 

108,363 

The  amounts  of  market  milk  distributed  in  1919-1920  and  1920-1921  were  estimated  at  59,831,000 
and  60,110,000  gallons  respectively. 


Sources  of  data:  1921-1922,  Frey,  J.  J.  Statistical  report  of  California 
dairy  products.  California  State  Dept.  Agr.,  Special  Pub.  30:  p.  8.  1923.  1922- 
1923,  Frey,  J.  J.  Statistical  report  of  California  dairy  products,  1922-1923. 
California  State  Dept.  Agr.,  Special  Pub.  39:  p.  7.  1923.  1923-1924,  Frey,  J.  J. 
Statistical  report  of  California  dairy  products,  1923-1924.  California  State 
Dept.  Agr.,  Special  Pub.  50:  p.  7.  1924.  1925,  Frey,  J.  J.  Statistical  report  of 
California  dairy  products,  1925.  California  State  Dept.  Agr.,  Special  Pub. 
62 :  p.  16.  1926.  1926,  Frey,  J.  J.  Statistical  report  of  California  dairy  products, 
1926.     California  State  Dept.  Agr.,  Special  Pub.  71 :  p.  12.     1927. 


